Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 06 October 1906 |
| Docket Number | 2,332. |
| Citation | 148 F. 377 |
| Parties | PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. v. EDWARDS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
L. G Susemihl (T. A. Murphy, on the brief), for appellant.
W. E. Blake , for appellee.
Before SANBORN, HOOK, and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.
The question in this case is whether a chattel mortgage taken by the appellant upon the property of the bankrupt constitutes a voidable preference under section 60b of the bankruptcy act (Act. July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 562 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3445)), as amended by Act Feb. 5, 1903, c. 487, Sec 13, 32 Stat. 799 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 689). Since it appears without dispute that the mortgage was secured within four months before the filing of the petition and the maker was insolvent at the time, the question may be more narrowly stated: Had the appellant or its attorney who attended to the matter reasonable cause to believe that a preference was intended by the bankrupt? The referee answered in the affirmative, and he was sustained by the District Court.
We are of the opinion that they were right. For several months prior to the taking of the mortgage the appellant had almost wholly ceased its sales to the bankrupt, and was insistently pressing for a full satisfaction of its account. Two agents of appellant had recently visited the bankrupt to secure payment. An attorney then went to the city where the bankrupt did business with instructions not to do anything if the agent who last preceded him had secured a substantial payment on the demand. The agent had secured such a payment and also a check for the balance. The attorney learned of the payment and returned home. The check was subsequently dishonored. One previously given had also been dishonored. The attorney went again and secured another check, dated ahead, for the balance then due, and also a note for the same amount secured by a chattel mortgage upon all of the bankrupt's tangible personal property, consisting of machinery, materials, and manufactured stock, worth many times the amount of the debt. This was nine days before the adjudication in bankruptcy. By agreement the mortgage was not to be placed on record if the bankrupt should send a draft for the amount of the debt by the time the date of the check came by. This check, the third one, was also dishonored and the mortgage was recorded the day before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Schindler
...283 F.2d 540 (C.C.A.7th); Security First National Bank of Los Angeles. v. Quittner, 176 F.2d 997 (C.C.A.9th); Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Edwards, 148 F. 377 (C.C.A.8th); Boston National Bank v. Early, 17 F.2d 691 (C.C.A.1st); Pender v. Chatham Phenix Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 58 F.2d 968, 9......
-
Brown Shoe Co. v. Carns
...knowledge of dishonored checks has been considered as evidence tending to show reasonable cause for such belief. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Edwards (C. C. A. 8) 148 F. 377; Grandison v. Nat. Bank of Comm. of Rochester (C. C. A. 2) 231 F. 800, 809; Lowenstein v. Salop (C. C. A. 2) 55 F.(2......
-
Coder v. Arts
... ... (C.C.A.) 148 F. 598, ... 599; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Edwards (C.C.A.) ... 148 F. 377 ... And ... ...
-
First Bank of Maysville v. Alexander
...C. L., sec. 105; In re Eggert, 102 F. 735, 43 C. C. A. 1; In re Virginia Hardwood Mfg. Co. (D. C.), 139 F. 209; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Edwards, 148 F. 377, 78 C. C. A. 191; Coder v. McPherson, 152 F. 951, 82 C. C. A. 99; Rogers v. Fidelity Sav. Bank & L. Co. et al. (D. C.), 172 F. 73......