Sidney Schuyler v. Charles Littlefield

Decision Date23 March 1914
Docket NumberNo. 213,213
Citation34 S.Ct. 466,232 U.S. 707,58 L.Ed. 806
PartiesSIDNEY S. SCHUYLER, John R. Chadwick, and Charles L. Burnham, Co-Partners, Trading under the Firm Name and Style of Schuyler, Chadwick, & Burnham, Appts., v. CHARLES E. LITTLEFIELD, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of A. O. Brown & Company
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. W. Benton Crisp and Theodore M. Crisp for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from page 708 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Edwin D. Hays, Daniel P. Hays, and Ralph Wolf for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from page 709 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:

This record presents for determination another of the many questions arising out of the tangled and complicated affairs of Brown & Company, stockbrokers of New York city, who made an assignment on August 25th, 1908, and who were subsequently adjudged bankrupts. The proceeding is by Schuyler, Chadwick, & Burnham, to recover trust funds which they claim to have traced into the possession of Brown & Company's trustee in bankruptcy. The case involves an application of the rule that where one has deposited trust funds in his individual bank account, and the mingled fund is at any time wholly depleted, the trust fund is thereby dissipated, and cannot be treated as reappearing in sums subsequently deposited to the credit of the same account. Knatchbull v. Hallett, L. R. 13 Ch. Div. 696, 49 L. J. Ch. N. S. 415, 42 L. T. N. S. 421, 28 Week. Rep. 732; Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 671 (1), 693, 33 L. ed. 696, 704, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354; Crawford County v. Strawn, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1100, 84 C. C. A. 553, 157 Fed. 49, 54.

There is no controversy about the law, but a complete disagreement about matters of fact where it is necessary to decide with certainty, on the one hand, the exact time and order in which a series of checks were deposited; and, on the other, to determine, with equal certainty, the exact order in which a series of checks drawn on that account were paid and what use was made of the money so drawn. As the bankruptcy occurred on August 25, 1908, and as the testimony was taken several months later, it is not surprising that the witnesses were not able to establish definitely the order in which these transactions took place, nor that the referee, district judge, and court of appeals each differed from the other as to what had been proved. The referee found that Schuyler, Chadwick, & Burnham had traced their funds into the hands of the trustee, and were therefore entitled to recover. The district judge agreed with the referee in this conclusion, but disagreed with him as to some of the findings of fact on which that conclusion was based. The circuit court of appeals disagreed with both, and held that the trust fund had not been traced into the hands of the trustee, and thereupon dismissed the complaint. The appeal from that degree involves a consideration of the facts, which may be thus briefly stated:

Brown & Company were brokers in New York city, and on August 24th, 1908, by false representations of solvency obtained from Schuyler, Chadwick, & Burnham, 300 shares of Interborough stock (worth $32 per share), agreeing at once to send in payment a check for $9,600, capable of certification. This was not done, and in spite of repeated demands the check was not delivered until after banking hours on August 24th, and too late to have it certified that day. In the meantime Brown & Company sold to Miller the

                      300 shares Interborough, for...... $ 9,600
                 
                     1000 shares Northern Pacific....... 143,000
                 
                     1000 shares Great Northern......... 137,000
                                                        ---------
                       Total........................... $289,600
                 

Miller thereupon gave Brown & Company a check for $266,600, which was deposited in the Hanover National Bank on August 24. Miller retained the balance of $23,000 on some claim which was not admitted by Brown & Company. They later that day obtained from Miller a check for $23,000, which was deposited in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
135 cases
  • In re Independent Clearing House Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Utah
    • August 6, 1984
    ...the mingled funds are entirely depleted, the trust funds become dissipated and no longer traceable. Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U.S. 707, 710, 34 S.Ct. 466, 466-467, 58 L.Ed. 806 (1914); Johnson v. Morris, 175 F.2d 65, 67 (10th Cir.1949). See 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ? 541.13, at 541-69 (15......
  • Chapman v. Boynton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • May 13, 1933
  • Newco Land Co. v. Martin
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1948
    ...Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 63 F. (2d) 833; Mercantile Trust Co. v. St. L. and S.F.R.R., 99 Fed. 485; Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U.S. 707, 58 L. Ed. 806; 3 Scott on Trusts, pp. 2483-2485; American Law Restatement of the Law of Restitution, sec. BOHLING, C. Action for money ......
  • In re Anjopa Paper & Board Manufacturing Co., 93218.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 6, 1967
    ...claimant is entitled to follow his money into the property thus acquired." Scott, § 516 at 3289. In Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U.S. 707, 710, 712-713, 34 S.Ct. 466, 58 L.Ed. 806 (1914) recovery would have been allowed if checks drawn on the mixed account were shown to have been used in ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Mechanic's Lien Trust Fund Statute: an Underused Tool in Civil Litigation and Bankruptcy Cases
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 31-8, August 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...monies were in hands of trustee when sold); Johnson v. Morris, 175 F.2d 65, 66 (10th Cir. 1949). 14. E.g., Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U.S. 707 Johnson v. Morris, 175 F.2d 65 (10th Cir. 1949). But see Begier v. IRS, 496 U.S. 53 (1990) (funds withheld for trust fund taxes held in trust even......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT