In re Henry Siegel Co.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 20297. |
| Citation | 223 F. 369 |
| Parties | In re HENRY SIEGEL CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Robert A. B. Cook, of Boston, Mass., for creditor.
Charles F. Weed, of Boston, Mass., for trustee in bankruptcy.
This is a petition to reclaim from the trustees in bankruptcy of the Henry Siegel Company certain goods (or the proceeds thereof) upon the ground that when the goods were ordered and delivered the buyer was bankrupt, did not intend to pay for them, and procured them fraudulently from the petitioners. The case was submitted to the referee upon a statement of agreed facts, and further evidence consisting of certified copies of proceedings in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against various corporations and persons, including Siegel and Vogel individually. In addition thereto, the court takes judicial notice of the papers on record in the bankruptcy case.
The bankrupt, a Massachusetts corporation, operated a large department store in Boston. During December, 1913, it 'was insolvent both at common law and within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act' (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544). Agreed facts. In other words, at that time its property at a fair valuation amounted to less than its indebtedness. The goods here in question were ordered by the bankrupt from the petitioners on the 22d of December. They were delivered to it on the 23d, 24th, and 27th of December 1913. On the 29th of that month, i.e., seven days after the order and two days after the last delivery, receivers were appointed for it; and it was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt.
The learned referee was of the opinion that an intent not to pay for the goods had not been made out. While such an intent must be, of course, established, it is not necessary that there should be direct evidence of it; it may be, and usually is, inferred from the facts. When these goods were purchased the buyer was deeply and hopelessly insolvent. Presumably the men in control of it were aware of its condition; there is no evidence to the contrary. They must have known, and their knowledge is imputable to the bankrupt, that it could not pay for these goods except at the expense of its other creditors and by giving what would have been a preference; in other words, that it could not pay in an honest and regular way. Purchase under those conditions was, I think, the legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE HENRY W. BREYER
...pay when the purchase is made is equivalent to purchase with intent not to pay. Such purpose is constructively fraudulent. In re Henry Siegel Co. (D. C.) 223 F. 369; Gillespie v. Piles & Co. (C. C. A.) 178 F. 886; Horner v. Henning, 93 U. S. 228, 23 L. Ed. 879; In re K. Marks & Co. (C. C. A......
-
Atlantic Steamer Supply Company v. The SS Tradewind
...pay when the purchase is made is equivalent to purchase with intent not to pay. Such purpose is constructively fraudulent. In re Henry Siegel Co., (D.C.) 223 F. 369; Gillespie v. Piles & Co., (C. C.A.) 178 F. 886 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 1; Hornor v. Henning, 93 U.S. 228, 23 L.Ed. 879; In re K. Mark......
-
Manly v. Ohio Shoe Co.
...of paying for them except by giving an unlawful preference to the seller. This is the equivalent of "intent not to pay." In re Henry Siegel Co. (D. C.) 223 F. 369; Gillespie v. J. C. Piles & Co. (C. C. A. 8th) 178 F. 886, 891, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1; Jones v. H. M. Hobbie Grocery Co., supra ......
-
In re PH Krauss & Co.
...from the vendee's trustee in Bankruptcy citing In re Spann, 183 F. 819; Halsey v. Diamond Distilleries Co. 191 F. 498.' "In Re Henry Siegel Co., 223 F. 369, decided by the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in 1915, the facts are thus "During December, 1913, the Siegel Compan......