In re Butts
Decision Date | 27 February 1903 |
Citation | 120 F. 966 |
Parties | In re BUTTS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Gibbs & Wilbur, for the motion.
Edson A. Hayward, opposed.
In the month of October, 1901, the American Agricultural Chemical Company shipped and delivered to the said James P. Butts at Oneonta, N.Y., certain goods under and pursuant to the terms of certain agreements, partly printed and partly in writing (both being the same in terms, and therefore treated here as one), which provide as follows:
Then follows a description of the goods shipped, with prices, etc.
'For conditions of settlement, see reverse side of contract.
This was signed by said company by its salesman. Immediately below, the defendant (now bankrupt) signed the following:
Under these agreements, goods to the amount of $1,997.30 were delivered to the said defendant, Butts, and disposed of by him, and not paid for.
The complaint, which sets out the contracts in full, alleges, after stating a proper demand:
That this debt or claim is provable in bankruptcy cannot be successfully questioned or denied. The claim is founded on an express contract, and that the bankrupt was liable for the value of these goods, as fixed by the agreements, cannot be questioned. The legal effect of the allegations of the complaint is not broader than the legal effect of the contract made a part thereof. By section 17 of the act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. 550 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428)), 'An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States,' it is provided:
'A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, except such as * * * were created by his fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while acting as an officer or in any fiduciary capacity.'
Must the embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation have occurred while the person charged was acting as an officer or in a fiduciary capacity, and with direct reference to the funds or property in his hands as such officer or person acting in such fiduciary capacity? This question seems not to have been settled. In re Basch (D.C.) 97 F. 761, Brown, District Judge, held:
'A debt due by a bankrupt in the character of a commission merchant, arising out of his failure to account for the value of goods consigned to him for sale on commission, on a contract to return the goods or their specific proceeds, is not a debt created by the bankrupt's 'fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity,' and, therefore, will be released by his discharge in bankruptcy.'
In Upshur v. Briscoe, 138 U.S. 378, 11 Sup.Ct. 317, 34 L.Ed. 931, the court, in speaking of section 33 of the act of 1867 (14 Stat. 533), says:
'It is to be noted that the language of section 33 of the act of 1867 excepts debts created by the bankrupt 'while acting in any fiduciary character'; and the language would seem to apply only to a debt created by a person who was already a fiduciary when the debt was created. In this view, it was said in Cronan v. Cotting, supra: 'We are inclined to the opinion that the phrase implies a fiduciary relation existing previously to, or independently of, the particular transaction from which the debt arises. The collocation tends to favor this interpretation. If the phrase, 'while acting,' etc., be referred to that which immediately precedes, it implies something in the nature of defalcation. If it be referred to the first branch of the provision, its association with fraud and embezzlement carries the implication of a debt growing out of some fraudulent misappropriation, or, at least, breach of trust."
In Matter of Bullis, 68 A.D. 508, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1047, it was stated (while not necessary to the decision of the case) that:
'Subdivision 4 of section 17 of the national bankruptcy law (30 Stat. 550 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428)), excepting from the operation of the discharge debts 'created by his fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while acting as an officer or in any fiduciary capacity,' does not, in the use of the words 'fraud,' 'embezzlement' and 'misappropriation,' relate to an individual, and by the word 'defalcation' alone apply to one 'acting as an officer or in any fiduciary capacity.''
In Frey v. Torrey, 70 A.D. 166, 75 N. Y. Supp. 40, it was held:
'The words 'while acting as an officer or in any fiduciary capacity,' used in subdivision 4 of section 17 of the United States bankruptcy law, excepting from the operation of the discharge in bankruptcy an indebtedness 'created by his fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while acting as an officer or in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Whiters
...not turned into one arising from a trust because the parties to one of the documents have chosen to speak of it as a trust. Cf. In re Butts (D.C.) 120 F. 966, 971; Bloomingdale v. Dreher (C.C.A.) 31 F.2d 93. The relation would be no different if the duty had been stated in terms of covenant......
-
In re Tsikouris
...not turned into one arising from a trust because the parties to one of the documents have chosen to speak of it as a trust. Cf. In re Butts (D.C.) 120 F. 966, 971; Bloomingdale v. Dreher (C.C.A.) 31 F.(2d) 93. The relation would be no different if the duty had been stated in terms of covena......
-
Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co
...not turned into one arising from a trust because the parties to one of the documents have chosen to speak of it as a trust. Cf. In re Butts (D.C.) 120 F. 966, 971; Bloomingdale v. Dreher (C.C.A.) 31 F.(2d) 93. The relation would be no different if the duty had been stated in terms of covena......
-
In re Harrill
...misappropriation or defalcation while acting as an officer or in any fiduciary capacity." § 17a(2) and (4), Bankruptcy Act. 2 In re Butts, 120 F. 966 (N.D.N.Y.1903), where a purchase agreement was couched in terms of trust; In re Wenham, 153 F. 910 (S.D.N.Y. 1906), holding a railroad ticket......