In re Stucky Trucking & Rigging Co.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1917 |
| Citation | 243 F. 287 |
| Parties | In re STUCKY TRUCKING & RIGGING CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Peter Bentley, of Jersey City, N.J., for claimant.
Samuel Heyman, of Jersey City, N.J., for trustee.
That part of the claim in question which has not been reduced to judgment, and which is based on promissory notes given by the bankrupt, admittedly, for an indebtedness of a third party to the claimant, is unquestionably an unenforceable obligation against the bankrupt. It would be difficult, indeed, to imagine a more flagrant example of an ultra vires contract than that which resulted in giving the notes in question. They represent part of the purchase price of a certain amount of the capital stock of the bankrupt corporation which Allen individually purchased from Stucky, and for which the corporation received no benefit or consideration whatever. If a transaction of this kind were to receive legal sanction there would be no security either in corporate investment or in the dealings between a corporation and those who might become its creditors. In addition, in one aspect, the legal effect of such a transaction would be to constitute Stucky a creditor rather than a stockholder of the corporation without the latter having received any benefit therefor; and in another it would amount to nothing more nor less than the loan by the corporation of money to Allen, a stockholder and officer, which is specifically prohibited by section 48 of the New Jersey Corporation Act. This vice being inherent in all of the notes, the only remaining question is whether any additional validity has been given to such of them as were reduced to judgment.
The judgment, admittedly, was entered by default a few days before the petition in bankruptcy was filed; no defense having been interposed nor any effort made by any of the officers of the company to defeat the action or question the legal right of the plaintiff therein to recover as against the corporation. It must be borne in mind that this is not a case where there has been a contest in another court respecting the enforceability of the notes and in which such court has pronounced a solemn judgment. While it is undoubtedly true that a judgment cannot be collaterally attacked, even by creditors or their representative, except for lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or collusion, I think it admits of no doubt that under the facts of this case, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heiser v. Woodruff
...S.Ct. 245, 84 L.Ed. 281; Chandler v. Thompson, 7 Cir., 120 F. 940; In re Continental Engine Co., 7 Cir., 234 F. 58; In re Stucky Trucking & Rigging Co., D.C., 243 F. 287; In re Rubin, 7 Cir., 24 F.2d 289. But it is quite another matter to say that the bankruptcy court may reexamine the issu......
-
Von Schleinitz v. North Hotel Co.
... ... 131; Gilbert v. Mfg. Co., 98 ... F. 208; Re Haas Co., 65 C. C. A. 218, 131 F. 232; Re Stucky ... Trucking Co., 243 F. 287; Hess v. Lumber Co., 245 P ... 753; Re Romadka Bros. Co., 132 C ... ...
-
XYZ Options, Inc., In re
...281; Chandler v. Thompson, 120 F. 940 (7th Cir.1902); In re Continental Engine Co., 234 F. 58 (7th Cir.1916); In re Stucky Trucking & Rigging Co., 243 F. 287 (D.N.J.1917); In re Rubin, 24 F.2d 289 (7th Cir.1928)). Thus, Heiser recognized and reaffirmed the rule of Pepper v. Litton, as descr......
-
Shayne of Miami, Inc. v. Greybow, Inc.
...contract and unenforceable against the right of creditors. Pratt v. Valliquette, 338 Mich. 397, 61 N.W.2d 648; In re Stucky Trucking & Rigging Co., 3 Cir., 243 F. 287, 288; Schloss Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Monongahela National Bank, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 365; 13 Am.Jur., Corporations, Section 833; An......