In re Friedman
Citations
- 153 F. 939
- 1907 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 314
Syllabus
<p>1. Bankruptcy — Fraudulent Transfer.</p> <p>A bankrupt shoe dealer sold his entire stock, receiving $3,850 therefor, which was given to his wife. She testified that she did not understand the matter, and did not remember whether she received any money, though early on the morning after the sale she met her brother, told him of the sale, and shortly thereafter the brother deposited, with a trust company $3,070, which he testified was obtained from his brother-in-law, W., in repayment of certain loans which neither were able to identify. Thereafter the wife’s brother, on being served with a subpoena in bankruptcy for his examination, called, on IV., and gave him a check for $2,500 without solicitation, which check was immediately certified and paid. Held, that the transaction was a scheme to defraud the bankrupt’s creditors, and that the fund would be ordered paid, over to the trustee.</p> <p>LEd. Note.' — For cases in point, see (lent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 274-1</p> <p>2. Same — Summary Proceedings.</p> <p>Where the proceeds of a sale of a bankrupt’s business were found to be in possession of certain persons, who were a mere cover or receptacle for the property to conceal it and prevent it being readied by the bankrupt’s creditors, it was recoverable by summary proceedings: the trustee not being required to resort to a plenary suit for that purpose.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 447J</p> <p>On the night of March 17, 1907, the bankrupt, a shoe dealer, sold his entire stock, receiving therefor '$3.850, which, it was alleged, was given to his wife, O. The latter testified she was suddenly called to the store, where she saw several strangers, but was so excited she was unable to understand what was transpiring, and she could not remember whether she received any money. Early the next morning she met her brother, L. — a Coney Island photographer, in a small way of business — at the Manhattan entrance of Brooklyn Brid
Judges: Hough
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In re FriedmanSecond Circuit· 1908-04-14· cited 10×
- Henkin v. FousekEighth Circuit· 1917-10-15· cited 8×
- In re LummusN.D. Georgia· 1913-11-06· cited 6×
- Cohen v. HesselThird Circuit· 1922-02-28· cited 4×
- In re J. H. Small Shoe Co.D. Connecticut· 1926-05-12· cited 2×
- In re MillsE.D. New York· 1910-06-20· cited 2×
- In re HollandE.D. New York· 1910-02-11
- In re Famous Clothing Co.W.D. New York· 1910-07-21
- In re ResnekS.D. New York· 1917-06-15
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.