Opinion

In re Blair

  • 102 F. 987
  • 1900 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235
Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Filed
Jun 25, 1900
Status
Published
Author
Brown
On the bench
Brown
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 81.8%

The opinion

BROWN, District Judge.

Although the collection by execution and payment to the creditor constituted a “preference” (Bankr. Act, § 00a), yet, as the money was received by the creditor before the petition in bankruptcy was filed, the transaction thereby became consummated, thus differing from In re Kenney, 3 Am. Bankr. R. 353, 97 Fed. 554 . If the preference was received by the creditor, without reasonable .cause to believe a preference was intended (Bankr. Act, § 60b), it seems not to be recoverable back by the trustee. Here the petition does not charge that the creditors had reasonable cause to believe the bankrupts to be insolvent; but only the fact of- their insolvency at that time, which the creditors in their answer deny, and also deny all knowledge of that fact, if true.

Under the recent decision of the supreme court, I am of opinion that this transaction being completely executed by the payment of the money by the sheriff before the petition was filed, the remedy of the trustee is by plenary action alone in the state court. See Hicks v. Knost, 2 Am. Bankr. R. 153, 94 Fed. 625 ; In re Knost, 2 Am. Bankr. R. 475; Strobel & Wilkin Co. v. Knost, 3 Am. Bankr. R. 631, 99 Fed. 409 .

Motion denied.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.