Libby v. Crossley

• Decision Date: 29 July 1887
• Citation: 31 F. 647
• Parties: LIBBY and others v. CROSSLEY and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

31 F. 647

LIBBY and others v. CROSSLEY and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

July 29, 1887

Jas McKeen and Oliver C. Stevens, for plaintiff.

Thomas Hillis and John Hillis, for claimants.

CARPENTER J.

This action was brought by attachment of the funds of the defendant Crossley in the possession of certain insurance companies, who have answered, disclosing funds which have since, by settlement, been ascertained to amount to $57,500 and also disclosing the fact that they have been notified of an assignment of the funds. The assignees were then cited in and the case has now been heard on the question of charging the trustees.

The writ in this case was served by attachment, April 2, 1886. The assignment was made January 8, 1885, and, for a consideration of $60,000, purports to assign all sums of money due from the companies who are served as trustees in this action. The assignees, who here appear as claimants, are brothers of the defendant. It appears by the testimony that on the day the assignment was made, the defendant was indebted to his brothers for various advances of money theretofore made, and for interest thereon, amounting in the whole to $57,772.77; and that on that day they paid him in cash, in various sums contributed by each of them, an amount sufficient to bring the sum up to $60,000, and took from him the assignment. The plaintiffs contend that this assignment is void, because it was made to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors.

At the time of the assignment, as is ascertained by the judgment in this case, the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs for a sum above $12,000. This claim appears to have been in dispute, but, for the purpose of this discussion, I think it must be assumed that there was a valid debt. On the other hand, he was indebted to his brothers in a sum above $50,000, besides interest. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to say that the transaction was other than a preference of one creditor over another, and therefore not within the statute of Elizabeth against fraudulent conveyances. I have therefore reached the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to this fund. I base this conclusion on a finding, as stated above, of the facts as to the doings and intentions of the parties preceding and attending the execution of the assignment.

This finding is in accordance with the testimony of the claimants but I have had much...