Dutcher v. Wright
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 94 U.S. 553,24 L.Ed. 130 |
| Parties | DUTCHER v. WRIGHT |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. W. P. Lynde for the appellant.
Mr. E. Mariner, contra.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.
Transfers of property by an insolvent debtor, within four months before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy against such debtor, with a view to give a preference to any creditor, is forbidden by the Bankrupt Act; and the provision is to the effect that if any such insolvent debtor, within that period and with that view, procures or suffers his property, or any part
Page 554
thereof, to be attached, sequestered, or seized on execution, or makes any payment, pledge, assignment, transfer, or conveyance of his property, within that period and with that view, the attachment or seizure and the payment, pledge, assignment, transfer, or conveyance shall be void, if the person receiving the same, or to be benefited thereby, had reasonable cause to believe that such debtor was insolvent, and that such attachment, payment, pledge, assignment, or conveyance was made in fraud of the provisions of the Bankrupt Act. 14 Stat. 534; Rev. Stat., sect. 5128.
Congress has also defined the meaning of certain terms employed in the Bankrupt Act, and has regulated the mode of computing time 'in all cases in which any particular number of days is prescribed by the act, or shall be mentioned in any rule or order of court, or general order which shall at any time be made under the same, for the doing of any act or for any other purpose,' the rule enacted being that the computation 'shall be reckoned, in the absence of any expression to the contrary, exclusive of the first and inclusive of the last day, unless the last day shall' be dies non within the judicial sense. Rev. Stat., sect. 5013, p. 974.
Most of the matters of fact material to the decision of the case are either admitted, or so fully proved that they may be regarded as without dispute. Peterson, being insolvent, was, on the 8th of April, 1870, adjudged bankrupt, pursuant to his own petition filed in the District Court for the District of Minnesota. Prior to that time he had long been engaged in trade, doing business as a merchant in Rochester, in that State. Sufficien appears also to show that the respondents were engaged in trade, doing business as wholesale merchants under the firm name of Dutcher, Ball, & Goodrich, at Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin; that the said Peterson, on the 8th of December next before the time he was adjudged bankrupt, and long before that time, was insolvent, and largely indebted to the respondents for goods, wares, and merchandise theretofore sold and delivered to the bankrupt at his aforesaid place of business; and that the bankrupt did then and there, to wit, on the said 8th of December, with the knowledge, assent, and procurement of the respondents, assign, transfer, and convey
Page 555
to the said respondents certain portions of his property, consisting of promissory notes, securities, mortgages, and other evidences of indebtedness, with a view to give a preference to the respondents over the other creditors of the bankrupt, and in fraud of the provisions of the Bankrupt Act.
Proof of a satisfactory character is exhibited in the record to show that the assignment, transfer, and conveyance of the said securities and property were made to the respondents with a view to secure to them a preference over the other creditors of the bankrupt; and that the respondents had reasonable cause to believe that the assignor, transferer, and grantor was then and there insolvent, and that the assignment, transfer, and conveyance of the securities and property were made in fraud of the provisions of the Bankrupt Act and to prevent the said securities and property from coming to the possession of the assignee of the bankrupt debtor for distribution among his creditors, as required by law.
What the complainant charges is, that the securities and property transferred, assigned, and conveyed to the respondents belonged to him as the assignee of the bankrupt; and he prays for an account, and that the moneys collected be paid to him as such assignee, and that the securities uncollected be turned over to him, for the benefit of the creditors of the bankrupt.
Process was served; and the respondents appeared and pleaded the following defences: 1. That the securities and property were not transferred, assigned, and conveyed within four months next before the petition in bankruptcy was filed. 2. That the respondents were not served with process within two years from the time the cause of action accrued. 3. That the District Court for the District of Minnesota had exclusive jurisdiction of the cause of action set forth in the bill of complaint.
Instead of replying to the plea, the complainant under the rule in that behalf obtained an order setting it down for hearing at the next term; and the parties at the time appointed were fully heard, and the court overruled the several defences set up in the plea.
Pursuant to leave, the respondents filed an answer to the effect following, reference being first made to the admissions
Page 556
which the answer contains: 1. They They admit that the insolvent debtor was adjudged bankrupt on the day alleged in the bill of complaint, and that the complainant was duly appointed the assignee of the bankrupt's estate, as therein alleged; that an assignment of his estate was in due form made to the complainant, as assignee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Wall
...U.S. 263, 26 L.Ed. 164; Auffmordt v. Rasin, 102 U.S. 620, 26 L.Ed. 262; Barbour v. Priest, 103 U.S. 293, 26 L.Ed. 478; Dutcher v. Wright, 94 U.S. 553, 24 L.Ed. 130; Phipps v. Sedgwick, 95 U.S. 3, 24 L.Ed. 591; Neblett v. MacFarland, 92 U.S. 101, 23 L.Ed. 471; Goodenow v. Milliken, Fed. Cas.......
-
JOINT COUNCIL, ETC. v. Delaware, L. & WR Co., 272
...preserve rights against unexpected and abrupt termination. Compare in general cases cited in 1 Wood, loc. cit. supra; Dutcher v. Wright, 94 U.S. 553, 24 L.Ed. 130; Sands v. Lyon, 18 Conn. 18; Paul v. Stone, 112 Mass. 27; President, etc., of Portland Bank v. President, etc., of Maine Bank, 1......
-
United States v. Barber, 2544.
...particularly Griffith v. Bogert, 18 How. 158, 15 L.Ed. 307; Arnold v. United States, 9 Cranch 104, 120, 3 L.Ed. 671; Dutcher v. Wright, 94 U. S. 553, 24 L.Ed. 130. According to these earlier cases, as was said by Mr. Justice Story in Arnold v. United States, 9 Cranch 104, 120, 3 L.Ed. "* * ......
-
In re Wolf & Levy
...31 of the bankruptcy statute of 1898 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3434), and the ruling under the former statute found in Dutcher v. Wright, 94 U.S. 553, 24 L.Ed. [122 F. 129] 130, and other cases-- especially Re Stevenson (D.C.) 94 F. 110. The terminus a quo being the 25th of April, the termin......