Hart v. Stinger
| Decision Date | 18 July 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 353.,353. |
| Citation | 46 F.2d 321 |
| Parties | HART v. STINGER et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
McCoy, Moss & King, of Lake Charles, La., for complainant.
Edwin F. Gayle, of Lake Charles, La., for respondents.
Plaintiff, as the trustee of the bankrupt estate of James E. Stinger, brought this plenary action against the said Stinger, his wife, Virginia D. Stinger, and a stepson, Carlos Allen, alleging that the first two defendants were residents of this district, and the last, Allen, was a resident of Houston, Tex.; that within four months preceding the filing of the petition in bankruptcy the bankrupt had executed in favor of his wife an instrument purporting to be a dation en paiment, or giving in payment of certain jewelry of the value of $4,000, or more, consisting of diamond rings, diamond pins, unmounted diamonds, watches, charms, emblems, and silverware, from his stock as a jeweler, in satisfaction of a purported debt in the sum of $3,500, a copy of which act was attached and made part of the petition; that defendants had refused to deliver the same to the bankrupt estate; that petitioner feared same would be disposed of or placed beyond the reach of the process of this court pending suit; that all of said defendants were without financial responsibility, and no judgment could be collected against them; that said Virginia D. Stinger worked in the store of the bankrupt, kept his books, and knew that he was insolvent at the time of delivery of said property to her; that the same was done "with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors," in violation of the bankruptcy law; that, if said Stinger was in truth indebted to his wife, which petitioner denied, the transaction was an "illegal attempt to defraud the creditors" of the bankrupt.
Petitioner prayed for a restraining order and temporary injunction to prevent the disposition of said property, and for a writ of sequestration to seize all of it in possession of the defendants, that said dation en paiment be declared null and void, as fraudulent, and in the alternative that it be held an attempt to give an illegal preference.
Writs of injunction and sequestration were issued and served upon the defendants resident in this district; a small quantity of silverware was seized; service upon Allen was made by the marshal of the Southern District of Texas, at Houston, and the return recites as follows:
"Mr. Allen stated that he did not have the property described in the plaintiff's bill, jewelry, diamonds and diamond rings, but if he had to produce said property that he could get hold of same and would do so when the time came."
The defendant wife affirmed the good faith and validity of the giving in payment, and that it was for a just debt owing to her; that the said property had been delivered to her and by her to her son, the said Carlos Allen, "to be disposed of as directed"; that it was conveyed to her for the repayment of the sum of $3,500 advanced to her husband out of her paraphernal funds, which he was permitted to do under the law of Louisiana. She admitted that she kept the books of her husband, but denied that she knew he was insolvent. Further, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tcherepnin v. Franz, 64 C 1825.
...(1923). In other cases, principles of valid preferences and bankruptcy law were involved as well as fraudulent conveyance. Hart v. Stinger, 46 F.2d 321 (W.D.La.1930). In Hart, for example, principles of valid preferences provided that the conveyance by the bankrupt to his wife was only inva......
- Zolla v. Grand Rapids Store Equipment Corporation