Yardley v. Torr

Decision Date26 April 1895
Docket Number5.
Citation67 F. 857
PartiesYARDLEY v. TORR et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This was a bill in equity filed by Robert M. Yardley, as receiver of the Keystone National Bank of the City of Philadelphia against William S. Torr, Charles C. Torr, Margaret Boyd William Smith, John Mahony, James Welsh, James Tully, Lucy Torr, Charlotte Grosse, J. Edward Addicks, Robert C. Laird Morris W. Schaeffer, Anna Bringhurst, Charles E. Taber Washington H. Bringhurst, Harry Torr, the George Nugent Home for Baptists, the Pennsylvania Museum & School of Industrial Art, Ark Building & Loan Association, the Fidelity Insurance Trust & Safe Deposit Company (trustee for Josephine Y. Delbert), Goethe Building Association No. 2, the Pennsylvania Company for Insurance on Lives and Granting Annuities (trustee for Fannie Y. Riter), Gilbert Riter (trustee for Caroline Y. Riter), and City Hall Building & Loan Association. It averred: That on the 20th day of March, 1891, the said Keystone Bank was declared insolvent, and taken charge of by the comptroller of the currency of the United States, and that on the 9th day of May, 1891, the said complainant was appointed receiver of the said institution. That, on the day of the failure, William S. Torr was a shareholder of said bank, and was the owner and holder of 755 shares of the capital stock thereof. That the said comptroller subsequently ordered an assessment of $50 per share upon the shareholders, in pursuance of the act of congress in such case made and provided; that is to say, the sum of $37,750 upon William S. Torr, as the holder of the shares before mentioned. That subsequently the complainant commenced a suit for the recovery of the said sum against the said William S. Torr, and obtained a judgment against him for the sum of $39,781.88, with interest, on the 23d day of January, 1893. That complainant on the 23d day of February, 1893, issued a writ of fieri facias on said judgment against said William S. Torr, which writ was duly returned nulla bona. That said judgment was yet in force, and the whole amount, with interest, was due thereon. That on the 20th day of March, 1891,-- the day of the failure of the Keystone Bank,-- said William S. Torr was the owner in fee simple of certain real estate situate in the county of Philadelphia, and within the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, particularly described in the bill, and consisting of several lots or pieces of ground referred to and designated as A, B, C, D, E. F, G. H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. That said real estate was unincumbered, and of the value of $40,000 and upwards, and that said William S. Torr had no other real estate, and that he has no personal property which is subject to levy and execution. That for and with the purpose and intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors of their just and lawful actions, debts, and damages, said William S. Torr did convey all of the said real estate without any valuable consideration whatever, but for the alleged consideration of natural love and affection, as in his deeds of conveyance expressed,-- that is to say, on the 9th day of May, 1891, he executed and delivered five several deeds of conveyance, the first to his son Charles C. Torr, his heirs and assigns, for the real estate described as A to K, inclusive; the second to his daughter Lucy Torr, her heirs and assigns, for the premises described as L to S, inclusive; the next two to his daughter Anna Bringhurst, her heirs and assigns, for the premises described as T to X, inclusive; the last to his son Harry Torr, his heirs and assigns, for the premises described as Y and Z. That by the act of 13 Eliz.c. 5, which is part of the common law of Pennsylvania, the said five...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rogers v. Marchant
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 6 Agosto 1937
    ...after insolvency of the bank but before assessment upon the stock were set aside in Williams v. Travis (C.C. A.) 277 F. 134, Yardley v. Torr (C.C.) 67 F. 857, and Duncan v. Freeman, 152 Ga. 332, 110 S.E. 5; but differences have arisen in the decisions in cases in which the transfers were ma......
  • Marotta v. American Surety Co. of New York
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 4 Abril 1932
    ...petitioner was such a creditor. Smith v. Vodges, 92 U. S. 183, 23 L. Ed. 481; McLaughlin v. Bank, 7 How. 220, 12 L. Ed. 675; Yardley v. Torr (C. C.) 67 F. 857; Thomson v. Crane (C. C.) 73 F. My brethren hold that the fraudulent conveyance which is made an act of bankruptcy by section 3 is n......
  • Marchant v. Rogers, 888.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 24 Febrero 1937
    ...14, 1931); Murray v. Sill (C.C.A.) 7 F.(2d) 589; Williams v. Travis, 277 F. 134 (C. C.A.5th Cir., Jan. 10, 1922); Yardley v. Torr, 67 F. 857 (C.C.E.D.Pa., April 26, 1895); Duncan v. Freeman, 152 Ga. 332, 333, 110 S.E. 5 (Dec. 13, In Peterson v. Wahlquist, 125 Neb. 247, 249 N.W. 678, 89 A.L.......
  • Donald v. Scott
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 8 Mayo 1895

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