Thomas v. Adelman
Decision Date | 11 April 1905 |
Citation | 136 F. 973 |
Parties | THOMAS v. ADELMAN. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Edwin Louis Garvin, for complainant.
Jesse Silberman, for defendant.
This is an action to recover money alleged to have been paid to the defendant by the bankrupt, on the ground that it was a preference, within section 60a of the bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 562 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 3445)). Proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted on February 13, 1903. It appears from the defendant's statement that in May or June of the previous year the bankrupt came to him The first loan was $125 or $100, and the second loan was $130. ' The defendant states:
It further appears that before the payment the defendant went to the bankrupt's store, and, finding him absent, told his wife that he must have the money; that he told the bankrupt the same; and that later he wrote a letter in which he said he must have the money. It further appears from the defendant's statement that he had loaned the bankrupt money from time to time for nine years; that he never asked about his financial business; that when he went to the store he found a nicely arranged place, nicely stocked. It further appears that the bankrupt at the time was totally insolvent and that, in order to pay the defendant the debt, he sold his goods, and paid him from the proceeds.
Upon this evidence, it is concluded that the defendant had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cauthorn v. Burley State Bank
..."This phrase includes reasonable cause to believe that the debtor is insolvent, for this is one of the elements of preference." (Thomas v. Adelman, 136 F. 973; In re Kullberg, 176 F. "A person is always presumed to intend what is the necessary consequence of his act." (Western Tie & Timber ......
-
Hume v. Brown Shoe Co.
...Edwards, 160 F. 619, 87 C.C.A. 521; In re W. W. Mills Co. (D. C.) 162 F. 42; McElvain v. Hardesty, 169 F. 31, 94 C.C.A. 399; Thomas v. Adelman (D. C.) 136 F. 973; Hardy v. Gray et al., 144 F. 922, 75 C.C.A. 562; In re Andrews (D. C.) 135 F. 599; Walbrun v. Babbitt, 16 Wall. 577, 21 L. Ed. 4......
-
Allen v. McMannes
...and whether a general statement, such as that the book accounts are sufficient to pay the mercantile creditors, was true. Thomas v. Adelman (D.C.) 136 F. 973; English Ross (D.C.) 140 F. 631; In re Hines (D.C.) 144 F. 544; Jackman v. Eau Claire National Bank, 125 Wis. 485, 104 N.W. 98; In re......
-
In re Sutherland Co., Inc.
...... and from transactions of a character not ordinarily resorted. to by solvent traders. Thomas v. Adelman (D.C.N.Y.). 136 F. 973. Holcomb and Sutherland testify that they expected. the company to pull out and continue; but the fact remains. ......