In re Butts
Citations
- 120 F. 966
- 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 382
Syllabus
<p>1 Bankruptcy — Discharge—Debts Excepted erom Release.</p> <p>Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, § 17, cl. 4 (30 Stat. 550 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428]), providing that a discharge shall release a bankrupt from all provable debts except such as “were created by his fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while acting as an officer or in any fiduciary capacity,” should be so construed as to include within the exception debts created by fraud, embezzlement, or misappropriation in whatever capacity or relation the bankrupt was acting.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>Goods were shipped to a bankrupt under a written contract which on its face purported to be one of sale and purchase, contemplating that the goods would be resold by the purchaser and payment therefor made at stated times in cash or notes received on sales at prices therein fixed. It contained the words: “For conditions of settlement, see reverse side of contract.” On the back was the provision: “It is agreed that you will hold in trust and separate for the settlement of our account with you all of said goods unsold and all currency, open accounts, notes, liens, mortgages or other values received for goods sold.” Held, that such provisions did not convert the contract from one of sale into one creating a trust and establishing. a fiduciary relation between the parties, nor render the debt from the bankrupt on account of goods sold and not paid for one created by fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, within the meaning of Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, § 17, cl. 4 (30 Stat. 550 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428]), so as to prevent its release by a discharge of the bankrupt.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- viewing the transaction as a whole, holding “It was not competent for the parties, in this obscure uncertain manner, to change the legal effect of the transaction.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co.Supreme Court· 1934-12-03· cited 904×
- Bank Calumet v. Whiters (In Re Whiters)N.D. Indiana· 2006-02-02· cited 31×
- Delange v. Tsikouris (In Re Tsikouris)N.D. Indiana· 2006-03-30· cited 14×
- Cotton Belt Insurance v. Harrill (In Re Harrill)E.D. Tennessee· 1979-09-18· cited 13×
- Kaufman v. LederfineS.D. New York· 1943-03-18· cited 11×
- In re HarperU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia· 1904-12-20· cited 9×
- In re KalkN.D. New York· 1921-01-31· cited 5×
- Harton v. LetendreMass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.· 1942-10-03
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Upshur v. BriscoeSupreme Court· 1891-02-02· cited 141×
- Bracken v. MilnerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri· 1900-10-06· cited 16×
- In re BaschS.D. New York· 1899-11-25· cited 14×
- Burnham v. PidcockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1901-07-01· cited 13×
- In re BullisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1902-01-15· cited 10×
- Knott v. PutnamD. Vermont· 1901-04-04· cited 8×
- In re BenedictNew York Supreme Court· 1902-02-15· cited 5×
- Burnham v. PidcockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1901-03-08· cited 5×
- Watertown Carriage Co. v. HallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1902-07-01· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.