Obrázky stránek

and bill of sale which, under the state statute of frauds, are void except between the parties thereto. (Edmondson v. Hyde, 7 N. B. R. 1; 2 Sawy. 205; 5 Amer. Law T. Rep. (U. S. Cts.) 380; Fed. Cas. 4285.)

A party who afterwards became a bankrupt, in return for a loan executed a bill of sale of certain property to the lender, but took back a writing in the nature of a lease. There was no change of possession, and the instruments were not recorded. It was held that the transaction amounted to a mortgage and was invalid as against creditors. (In re Gurney, 15 N. B. R. 373; 7 Biss. 414; 9 Chi. Leg. News, 255; 4 Law & Eq. Rep. 28; Fed. Cas. 5873.)

Delivery of goods under a mortgage itself fraudulent is a violation of the Bankrupt Act, and the goods cannot be held as a pledge. (Robinson et al. v. Elliott, Ass., 11 N. B. R. 553; 22 Wall 513.) Although a court of equity would not lend its aid to a bankrupt to enforce a trust created by him for the purpose of concealing property from creditors, it would to his assignee for the benefit of creditors. (Tiffany v. Boatman's Saving Institution, 9 N. B. R. 245; 18 Wall. 375.) A sale of mortgaged premises by a trustee under a power of sale contained in the mortgage, made after the mortgagor has become bankrupt, is void per se (Lockett v. Hoge, 9 N. B. R. 167; Fed. Cas. 8444); and a person may be summarily ordered to release a mortgage taken upon property claimed as a homestead after a decree declaring the premises not to be exempt. (In re Boothroyd et al., 15 N. B. R. 368; Fed. Cas. 1653; 2 Cin. Law. Bul. 139.) Mortgages. See subdivision d, ante.

General assignments.- As to whether a general assignment is necessarily in fraud of the Bankrupt Act, the decisions are conflicting, some courts holding that upon its face a voluntary general assignment bears conclusive evidence that the assignor's intention is to prevent the property transferred being distributed under the Bankrupt Act (In re Kasson, 18 N. B. R. 379; Fed. Cas. 7617; Platt v. Preston et al, 19 N. B. R. 241; Fed. Cas. 11219; In re Smith, 3 N. B. R. 98; 4 Ben. 1; 3 Amer. Law T. 7; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 147; Fed. Cas. 12974); others holding that a general assignment made by insolvent debtors under the state law for the benefit of creditors, the same being untainted by fraud either against creditors or against the act, is valid (Sedgwick, Ass., v. Place et al., 1 N. B. R. 204; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 97; 34 Conn. 552; Fed. Cas. 12622; In re Arledge, 1 N. B. R. 195; Fed. Cas. 533); and that an assignment made for the benefit of all the assignor's creditors equally, in good faith, without fraud or intent to contravene any provision of the Bankrupt Act, or to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, is not a violation of the spirit and intention of the act (Haas, Ass., v. O'Brien, 16 N. B. R. 508); also that where a debtor makes an assignment of his property for the benefit of all his creditors, with intent to secure an equal distribution of all the debtor's property among his creditors, it is not necessarily a conveyance of the property with intent to defeat or delay the operation of the Bankrupt Act (In re Marter, 12 N. B. R. 185; Fed.

Cas. 9143); and that a deed of assignment is not rendered void by the fact that the debtor threatened bankruptcy unless a certain amount was accepted in satisfaction. (In re Walker, 18 N. B. R. 56; Fed. Cas. 17063.)

Where a creditor is about to get a judgment against his debtor, and the latter makes a general assignment under a state insolvent law for the benefit of his creditors, this is a conveyance to defeat or delay the operations of the Bankrupt Act (In re Langley, 1 N. B. R. 155); as is a general assignment of all property to a private assignee for the benefit of creditors, a few days before filing a petition in bankruptcy (In re Brodhead, 2 N. B. R. 93; 3 Ben. 106; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 107; Fed. Cas 1918); and an assignment for the benefit of creditors, pending proceedings to have a debtor declared a bankrupt, is a fraud upon the bankrupt law, and such assignee will be enjoined from making any transfer of the assignor's property. (In re Skoll, 16 N. B. R. 175; 1 Month. Jur. 350; 1 N. W. Rep. (O. S.) 108; 9 Chi. Leg. News, 377; 6 Amer. Law Rec. 15; 1 Tex. Law J. 42; 4 Law & Eq. Rep. 196; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 207; Fed. Cas. 12926.) It has been held that a power of revocation, inserted in an assignment made by a debtor for the benefit of his creditors, would render such assignment constructively fraudulent, and therefore void. (Jones, Ass., v. Clifton, 18 N. B. R. 125; 17 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 713; 6 Reporter, 324; 7 Cent. Law J. 522; Fed. Cas. 7453.)

Where a general assignment is made in fraud of the Bankrupt Act, it may be set aside if proceedings are brought within four months (In re Temple, 17 N. B. R. 345; 4 Sawy. 62; Fed. Cas. 13825); but except as against the assignee in bankruptcy, an assignment for the benefit of creditors is not void, although it gives priority to certain creditors. (Shryock & Rhodes, Ass., v. Bashore, 13 N. B. R. 481; Fed. Cas. 12820; Sparhawk et al. v. Drexel et al., 12 N. B. R. 450; 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. 560; Fed. Cas. 13204.) A bank made an assignment under the laws of Pennsylvania. The assignee brought suit on a note payable to the bank. The defendant raised the question of the validity of the assignment, because contrary to the provisions of the Bankrupt Act. It was held that such objection could only be raised by a creditor of the bank and plaintiffs were entitled to judgment. (Shryock et al., Ass., v. Bashore, 15 N. B. R. 283.) Creditors cannot be heard to allege that an assignment is fraudulent because of facts of which they were fully informed, where they have concurred in the execution of assignment. (Johnson, Ass., v. Rogers et al., 15 N. B. R. 1; 5 Amer. Law Rec. 536; 14 Alb. Law J. 427; Fed. Cas. 7108.) But it is said that where a creditor has accepted a dividend under an assignment, he has a right to disaffirm the act, on discovering the assignment to be fraudulent, by tendering back what he has received. (Johnson, Ass., v. Rogers et al., 15 N. B. R. 1; 5 Amer. Law Rec. 536; 14 Alb. Law J. 427; Fed. Cas. 7408.)

Conveyances to wife or children.- A husband out of debt may settle upon his wife such portion of his estate as he pleases, if done in good

faith, and not to defraud subsequent creditors (In re Jones et al., 9 N. B. R. 556; 6 Biss. 68; 6 Chi. Leg. News, 271; Fed. Cas. 7444); but a husband, when largely indebted, cannot make a voluntary donation, or even a voluntary conveyance, to his wife, to the prejudice of his creditors (Kehr et al. v. Smith, Ass., 10 N. B. R. 49; 20 Wall. 31; Pratt v. Curtis, 6 N. B. R. 139; Fed. Cas. 11375); and a conveyance by a husband, in embarrassed circumstances, of his real estate to trustees for the use of his wife, in consideration of property and money of hers which he had converted to his own use, the wife to have no power of disposition over the property during her life, and not by will without consent of the wife being reserved to the grantor and the trustees, is void; and the property so conveyed is liable for the husband's debts existing at the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy (Fisher v. Henderson et al., 8 N. B. R. 175; Fed. Cas. 4820); and though one commences a settlement on his wife with an honest intent, as by buying a lot, but continues the same project with a fraudulent intent, as by building a house and furnishing it, the whole transaction will be set aside (Sedgwick v. Place, 10 N. B. R. 28; Fed. Cas. 12621); also a loan by an insolvent father to his son, who makes a gift of the amount of the loan to his mother, by the purchase of a house in her name, is a fraud upon the creditors of the father. (In re Aldred, 3 N. B. R. 61; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 389; Fed. Cas. 4328.) Objection was made to the discharge of a bankrupt on the ground that, while insolvent, he had conveyed property to his wife. His conveyance of the property was likely to prevent his meeting his obligations. It was shown that twenty years before his wife had advanced money to him under a verbal promise of repayment and the money had been used to obtain credit in his business. The conveyance was held in fraud of creditors. (In re Antisdel, 18 N. B. R. 289; Fed. Cas. 490.) A conveyance by a father to his sons, in consideration of his support, is fraudulent as to his creditors and would be a cause of bankruptcy at the instance of creditors. (In re Johann, 4 N. B. R. 143; 2 Biss. 139; Fed. Cas. 7331.)

Invalid conveyances in general.- All transfers made to defeat the operation of the Bankrupt Act are absolutely void so far as they in any manner stand in the way of enforcing its provisions, where the proceedings are instituted within the time prescribed. (Stevenson et al. v. McLaren et al., 14 N. B. R. 403; In re Tomes et al., 19 N. B. R. 36; Fed. Cas. 14034; In re Black et al., 1 N. B. R. 81; 2 Ben. 196; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 39; Fed. Cas. 1457; In re Byrne, 1 N. B. R. 122; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 499; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 122; 15 Pittsb. Leg. J. 315; Fed. Cas. 2270.) A conveyance of the whole of a trader's property, or of the whole with a colorable exception made to a creditor, as a security for a pre-existing debt, is fraudulent and void, not only because he thereby deprives himself of the power of carrying on his trade, and withdraws his effects from the reach of other creditors, but because such a conveyance must either be fraudulent, kept secret, or produce

an immediate absolute bankruptcy (Rison v. Knapp, 4 N. B. R. 114; 1 Dill 186; Fed. Cas. 11861); also, if an individual, being in debt, makes a voluntary conveyance of his entire property, it constitutes fraud. Such rule does not apply to a conveyance by a person free from embarrassments and without reference to future responsibilities. If the circumstances clearly show a fraudulent intent the conveyance is void as to all creditors. (Keating v. Keefer, 5 N. B. R. 133; 4 Amer. Law T. 162; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 266; Fed. Cas. 7635.) And even though other considerations may also have induced the conveyance, if one motive prompting a conveyance by one member of a firm to the other of his interest in the firm is the hindrance and defeat of creditors, the conveyance is fraudulent at common law, and is denounced by the provisions of the Bankrupt Act (Burrill, Ass., v. Lawry, 18 N. B. R. 367; 11 Chi. Leg. News, 33; 24 Int. Rev. Rec. 342; Fed. Cas. 2199), as is a conveyance, absolute upon its face, of property which the grantor, who is in failing circumstances, secretly reserves the right to possess and occupy for a limited period under a parol agreement as part of the consideration. (Lukins v. Aird, 2 N. B. R. 27; 24 Wall. 78.) And a conveyance by deed executed more than four months prior to commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, but recorded within that period, the local law providing that such deed takes "effect as to subsequent purchasers and all creditors only from the time of record" (Thornhill & Co. v. Link, 8 N. B. R. 521; Fed. Cas. 13993); or an assignment made by an insolvent debtor to a creditor whose attorney is also attorney for the bankrupt and for another creditor. (In re Meyer, 2 N. B. R. 137; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 210; Fed. Cas. 9515.) But sales or transfers of any character, declared void by the bankrupt law, and a fraud upon it, are only void against persons claiming under proceedings in bankruptcy or in the course of administration of a bankrupt's estate in a court of bankruptcy. (Berryman v. Allen, 15 N. B. R. 113.)

The assignee may bring suit in the circuit court to set aside as fraudulent a transfer made by the bankrupt to another person and believed to be for the purpose of defrauding the creditors, even if the property may have been seized by the marshal and been transferred by him to the assignee; and the circuit court may issue an injunction to restrain proceedings in a state court against the assignee (Kellogg, Ass., v. Russell et al., 11 N. B. R. 121; 11 Blatchf. 519; Fed. Cas. 7666); and where it appeared that the bankrupts fraudulently put into the hands of the defendant certain sums of money, which defendant invested in stocks, after the adjudication of the bankrupts, at their request, the assignee, plaintiff, was decreed to be entitled to the stocks, and to a decree that the defendant vest in the plaintiff the title to the same, and pay the costs of suit. (Hyde, Ass., v. Cohen et al., 11 N. B. R. 461; Fed. Cas. 6967.) It has been held that a voluntary deed is not fraudulent merely because there is some indebtedness existing, but is void as to existing creditors

only when made by a person in such embarrassed circumstances as not to leave ample margin in favor of existing creditors. (Smith v. Kehr, 7 N. B. R. 97; 2 Dill. 50; 6 West. Jur. 451; Fed. Cas. 13071.)

The date of the execution and delivery of a deed, and not the date named therein, is the time from which to reckon the four months within which a petition in bankruptcy is to be filed, where the deed is intended to defraud creditors. (In re Rooney, 6 N. B. R. 163; Fed. Cas. 12032.)

Conveyances held valid.-There is nothing in the bankrupt law which prevents an insolvent from dealing with his property prior to institution of bankruptcy proceedings against him, if such dealing is conducted without any purpose to delay or defraud his creditors or to give a preference, and the value of the estate is not impaired. (Clark, Ass., v. Iselin, 11 N. B. R. 337; 21 Wall. 360.) An insolvent debtor may sell or incumber his estate for a present and sufficient consideration, if the transaction be bona fide, and without fraud or an intention to defeat the operation of the Bankrupt Act (Gattman & Co. v. Honea, Ass., 12 N. B. R. 493; 7 Chi. Leg. News, 395; Fed. Cas. 5271); or he may sell property to raise money for the purpose of procuring means to defray his expenses in contemplated bankruptcy proceedings, provided he does not sell at a sacrifice, and that the sum so raised is reasonable in amount (In re Keefer, 4 N. B. R. 126; 3 Chi. Leg. News, 125; Fed. Cas. 7636); and a transfer that is the execution of a contract made before there were circumstances to impeach it as an intended fraud on the Bankrupt Act, and the debtor appeared solvent, will be protected, and a bill by the assignee in bankruptcy to recover property so conveyed will be dismissed (In re Wood, 5 N. B. R. 421; Fed. Cas. 17937); but a general promise, made at the time a debt is contracted, to give security if required, cannot be executed after the debtor has become insolvent (Lloyd, Ass., etc. v. Strobridge, 16 N. B. R. 197; 10 Chi. Leg. News, 1; 1 San Fran. Law J. 13; Fed. Cas. 8435); and the law will permit the grant or the conveyance to take effect upon property when it is brought into existence and comes to belong to the grantor, in fulfillment of an express agreement, if the agreement is founded on good and valuable consideration, unless it infringes some rule of law or will prejudice the rights of third persons. (Barnard et al., Ass., v. Norwich & Worcester R. R. Co. et al., 14 N. B. R. 469; 4 Cliff. 351; 5 Amer. Law Rec. 361; 3 Cent. Law J. 608; 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 312; Fed. Cas. 1007.)

Sales of property in good faith before insolvency, for a fair price, cannot be impeached for fraud (Sedgwick v. Wormser, 7 N. B. R. 186; Fed. Cas. 12636); so in a proceeding to vacate a composition, it was held that a sale of bankrupt's stock and fixtures, prior to bankruptcy, would not be set aside on ground of inadequacy of price (In re Shaw et al., 19 N. B. R. 512; Fed. Cas. 12716); and where A., being in advanced years, conveyed all his property to his daughters, they agreeing to pay all his debts and support him, when his property exceeded in value all he owed, it was held

« PředchozíPokračovat »