Greenleve, Block & Co. v. Blum

Citations

• 59 Tex. 124
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 118

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud — Debtor and creditor.— A creditor may, if he acts bona fide and with ths sole purpose of securing his debt, receive property from an insolvent debtor in payment of a debt due, if the transfer be openly made, and no more property is taken than may be reasonably required to discharge the debt; and this although the creditor may know at the time of the transfer that he will prevent other creditors from enforcing their claims, and that the debtor is prompted in making such preference payment by motives of friendship.</p> <p>2. Purchaser — Fraud.— If, however, one nob a creditor should purchase the property of an insolvent debtor, with a knowledge that the debtor intended by the sale to place the property beyond the reach of his creditors, such purchaser would not be protected as against the creditors of the insolvent, though he may have paid an adequate consideration.</p> <p>3. Practice — Hew trial.— Here preponderance of evidence against a verdict will not be sufficient in the supreme court to authorize the reversal of a judgment entered thereon. Thus, where fraud was charged, and there was evidence tending to establish it, a verdict which in effect determined its existence was not disturbed, though direct evidence negatived the fraudulent intent.</p> <p>4. Fraud.— If the agent of a creditor receives from an insolvent debtor goods in payment of his debt, with the secret understanding between the agent of the creditor and the debtor, that from future sales of the goods the creditor shall receive all money in excess of the amount of the debt, with a view of hindering and delaying other creditors, such payment would be void as to such other creditors, though the creditor thus receiving payment may not in fact have known oof the fraudulent intent. The act of the agent in negotiating the settlement must be deemed in law the act of his principal.</p>