Christopherson v. Oleson

Citations

• 19 S.D. 176
• 102 N.W. 685
• 1905 S.D. LEXIS 18

Syllabus

<p>1. A recital in the abstract that the court charged that the evidence established insolvency is, in the absence of the evidence and proper exceptions, binding upon the Supreme Court on the issue of insolvency.</p> <p>2. While the question whether or not a creditor was charged with notice of his debtor’s insolvency, and that a payment was intended as á preference, is ordinarily for the jury, yeti where the facts as to the financial condition of the debtor are clearly established by a special verdict, the court may, as a matter of law, bold that the creditor was charged with such notice.</p> <p>3. Where, at the time property was transferred by a debtor to his creditor, ■ the latter knew of the existence of judgments against the -debtor, and that he had been unable to pay various notes and drafEs, was allowing sight drafts to be dishonored, and was failing to pay other obligations and accounts as they became due, the creditor was chargeable, as a matter of law, with such notice as to put him upon inquiry to ascertain the debtor’s financial condition, and whether he intended the transfer as a preference, in violation of BaDkr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, §60, subds. “a,” b,” 30 Stat. 563 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3445), declaring a transfer made within four months of bankruptcy proceedings, by which a creditor obtains a greater per centage of his debt than any other creditor of the same class, void, if such creditor had reasonable cause to believe that a preference was intended.</p>