In re EH Webb Grocery Co., 19258.
Decision Date | 01 February 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 19258.,19258. |
Citation | 32 F. Supp. 3 |
Parties | In re E. H. WEBB GROCERY CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Cornelius, McKinney & Gilbert, of Nashville, Tenn., for petitioner.
H. R. Young, of Nashville, Tenn., Trustee in Bankruptcy.
This matter is before the Court on petition to review the order of the Referee adjudging the claim of the Hooper Grocery Company to be a preference.
The bankrupt, a grocer, sought to purchase certain goods from the Hooper Grocery Company on September 15, 1938. Being advised by this Company that further credit could not be extended, the bankrupt then submitted the proposition of giving a mortgage on certain of his store fixtures as security for the purchase price of the goods. After an examination by an official of the Hooper Grocery Company, it agreed to deliver the merchandise upon the giving of this mortgage. On this date, September 15, 1938, the mortgage was drawn and executed. The merchandise was delivered. The mortgage was not acknowledged and registered until September 16, 1938. The amount of goods delivered was a fair value and equivalent to the amount of the mortgage. The bankrupt was insolvent at the time of the delivery of the goods. The petition for and adjudication of bankruptcy was on January 16, 1939.
While the finding of facts does not directly say, it is to be assumed that the mortgage was delivered, either actually or constructively, on September 15, 1938.
The question turns on a proper construction of Section 60, sub. a, of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.Code, § 96, sub. a, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96, sub. a. This section reads as follows:
The Referee was of the opinion that the mortgage became effective on the date of its registration and thus that the claim was both an antecedent debt and a depletion of assets. That is, that the transfer of the bankrupt's property was on September 16, 1938, for a debt that he had created on September 15, 1938, and within four months of bankruptcy.
It is my idea that the Referee has misconstrued this section of the statute. I think that this section of the statute did not change in substance the prior law but simply clarified the former provisions.
Under the facts as stated, I think...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barber v. Reina Nash Motor Co.
...First Nat. Bank v. Wegener, 94 Or. 318, 181 P. 990, 186 P. 41; Carroll v. Cash Mills, 125 S.Ct. 332, 118 S.E. 290, 295; In re E. H. Webb Grocery Co., D.C., 32 F.Supp. 3 (Tenn. law); Edmundson v. Scofield, D.C., 92 F.Supp. 91 (Texas law); McLoud v. Wakefield, 70 Vt. 558, 43 A. 179; Gilfillan......
-
Corn Exchange Nat Bank Trust Co Philadelphia v. Klauder
...999; In re Talbot Canning Corp., D.C., 35 F.Supp. 680; Associated Seed Growers, Inc. v. Geib, 4 Cir., 125 F.2d 683, and In re E. H. Webb Grocery Co., D.C., 32 F.Supp. 3. 1 52 Stat. 840, 869, 870, 11 U.S.C. § 96, sub. a, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96, sub. a. 2 129 F.2d 894. 3 Adams v. City Bank & Trust ......
-
In re Markert
...voidable under the Bankruptcy Act. Adams v. City Bank and Trust Company, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 453, 134 A.L.R. 1215, and In re E. H. Webb Grocery Company, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 3, cited by the mortgagee, are not opposed to this conclusion since in both cases the security was originally given for a pr......
-
Cohen v. United States, 226.
...32 F. Supp. 1 ... UNITED STATES ... In re HENRY J. PERKINS CO ... District Court, D. Massachusetts ... March 19, ... ...