Platt v. Preston
| Decision Date | 26 July 1880 |
| Parties | PLATT, Assignee, v. PRESTON and others. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
A Blumenshiel, for complainant.
B. F Tracy and Henry Brodhead, for defendant Preston.
F. W Angell, for defendant Weinfeld.
In Equity.
CHOATE D.J.
This is a bill in equity, brought by the assignee in bankruptcy of one Neumann, against William J. Preston, Montz Weinfeld, and Anthony J. Diekelman, to set aside, as fraudulent against the creditors of the bankrupt, a chattel mortgage given to the defendant Preston, a lease to the defendant Weinfeld, and a general assignment made to the defendant Diekelman, all of which are alleged to have been made and executed in pursuance of a common fraudulent purpose, and as parts of a single scheme to defraud, hinder, and delay creditors. The defendants Preston and Weinfeld appeared and defended upon the merits. Diekelman died, after appearing to resist an application for an injunction, and the suit has been revived against his administrator, who, on the fifth day of August, 1879, appeared in the cause by his solicitor, but no answer has been put in for him, nor has any order been entered taking the bill, pro confesso, as against him. Upon the issues raised by the answer of Preston and Weinfeld, which deny all the allegations of fraud contained in the bill, the proofs have been taken, and the cause has been heard on the pleadings and proofs.
The supreme court of the United States, in the case of Steward v. Platt, 19 N.B.R. 347, having decided that the failure to file a chattel mortgage pursuant to the statute of the state of New York does not, per se, avoid the mortgage in favor of an assignee in bankruptcy, there is no question to be determined, under the answer of the defendant Preston, except whether the mortgage was, in its inception fraudulent in fact as against creditors. The opinion expressed when the case was before the court upon an application for an injunction pendente lite, that the proofs then produced would not justify a finding that 'the mortgage was not, in its inception, made in good faith, otherwise than as it may have been intended to keep it secret as regards creditors,' is fully confirmed by the proofs now taken; and I am entirely satisfied that the mortgage was given and received in good faith, as security for an existing debt, and for future advances, without any purpose or intention of delaying, hindering, or defrauding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawson v. Warren
...Goddard v. Weaver, 1 Woods 257, 260 [Fed. Cas. No. 5,495]; In re Collins, 12 N.B.R. 379 [Fed. Cas. No. 3,007]; Platt v. Preston [D. C.] 3 F. 394; Yeatman v. Savings Institution, 95 U.S. 764 [24 L. Ed. 589]; Stewart v. Platt, 101 U.S. 731, 739 [25 L. Ed. 816]; Hauselt v. Harrison, 105 U.S. 4......
-
Chapin v. Jenkins
... ... Smith, 10 id. 60; Gerlach v ... Skinner, 34 id. 86; Flersheim v. Cary, 39 id. 178; Feineman ... v. Sachs, 33 id. 621; Stewart v. Platt, 101 U.S. 731; Rumsey ... v. Town, 20 F. 555; Clapp v. Nordmeyer, 25 id. 71 ... A. A ... Harris, and John H. Crain, for defendant in ... Encyc. of Law, ... 854; Shaw v. Glenn, 37 N.J.Eq. 32; Henrichs v. Woods, 7 ... Mo.App. 236; Brown v. Brabb, 11 Am. Rep. 549; Platt v ... Preston, 3 F. 394 ... 2d ... There is no question of defrauding creditors before this ... court; there is no evidence to that effect and no ... ...