Jacobs v. Van Sickel

Citations

• 123 F. 340
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4902

Syllabus

<p>2. Bankruptcy—Fraudulent Conveyance By Bankrupt—Consideration— Sufficiency of Evidence.</p> <p>In a suit by a bankruptcy trustee to avoid as fraudulent the bankrupt’s deed, operating as a mortgage, to his father-in-law, both the grantor and the grantee answered under oath, and testified that the conveyance was to secure a bona fide indebtedness representing advances to the bankrupt from time to time. A canceled note representing the indebtedness at its date was introduced. The grantee was in receipt of a salary varying from $2,500 to $4,000, and was engaged in outside ventures. His bank account showed that during 12 years his deposits had amounted to $47,000. Held, that the conveyance was not fraudulent.</p> <p>2. Same—Preference—Bankrupt’s Intent—Creditor’s Belief.</p> <p>The highest court of New Jersey, where a bankrupt’s grantee resided, decided that one employed as an agent on a percentage of profits is not a partner. The bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York held that such an agent was a partner, and he was included, despite his contest, in an adjudication of bankruptcy of the firm. Within four months of this adjudication he had made the conveyance in suit. Held), that the conveyance could not be avoided under Bankr. Act 1898, § 60, Act July 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 562, c. 541 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3445], providing that if a bankrupt shall have given a preference within four months, and the creditor shall have had reasonable cause to believe that it was intended thereby to give a preference, it shall be voidable by the trustee; the grantee being assumed to know that, even if the bankrupt were a partner, his individual estate would be primarily liable for his individual debts.</p>