Allen v. French

60 N.E. 125, 178 Mass. 539
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 18, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 60 N.E. 125 (Allen v. French) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. French, 60 N.E. 125, 178 Mass. 539 (Mass. 1901).

Opinion

Barker, J.

This bill was brought by the trustee of the bankrupt estate of James H. Wentworth to set aside certain transfers made on July 14, 1898, by the bankrupt, of one hundred and ninety-eight of the two hundred shares of the corporate stock of the J. H. Wentworth Company, to the defendant French. The ground first alleged was that the transfer was made to prefer French. By an amendment it was alleged that the transfer was in fraud of Wentworth’s creditors.

The case was heard by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, who entered a decree dismissing the bill with costs. The plaintiff then requested under St. 1883, c. 223, § 7, a report of the facts found and such a report was made. Thereafter the plaintiff appealed to this court. The evidence was taken by a commissioner appointed under the Equity Rule 35, and we have before us the pleadings, the evidence reported by the commissioner under the rule, the report of facts found, made under St. 1883, c. 223, § 7, the decree dismissing the bill, and the appeal.

The defendants contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to have this court consider the evidence reported by the commissioner, and that the only question open upon the appeal is whether upon the facts found and reported under St. 1883, c. 223, § 7, the decree should be affirmed. The provision made by the section cited is general and cannot be construed to exclude from its operation cases in which the right of having all the evidence reported under Rule 35 has been exercised. In all such cases it is the duty of this court to consider the evidence so brought up. At the same time, the ordinary rule of decision in cases heard and determined by a lower court or a single justice, and brought here by an appeal which requires "us to consider the evidence upon which the decree was made, is to be applied. This rule prevents us from reversing the decree appealed from unless it is in our view clearly wrong. It also requires us to [542]*542accept as true the findings of fact reported, unless we find them to be clearly wrong.

Giving to the decree dismissing the bill, and to the findings of fact reported after the entry of the decree, the weight to which they are entitled under the rule of decision referred to, and considering the evidence reported by the commissioner under Rule 35, we find the facts concerning the transfers sought to be set aside as follows.

Wentworth’s mercantile business was the purchase of lumber, the running of a planing and moulding mill and the sale of its product, chiefly in the form of interior finishings for building purposes. His statement of assets and liabilities on January 1, 1898, showed assets which he valued at $68,655.77, and liabilities of $45,321.06. Of the assets the cash and stock on hand in his mercantile business and the book accounts, land, machinery and buildings, and horses and teams belonging to that business made up $59,514.77. The other $9,141 was in outside land. The liabilities were, notes payable $11,875.80, bills payable $20,539.26, mortgage on mill $9,906, and mortgage on the outside land $3,000.

In the early part of the year 1898 he found difficulty in meeting his pecuniary obligations, and, about the last of March, he applied to his lawyer for advice. The lawyer at once asked who was his heaviest creditor, and upon receiving the reply that it was Mr. French of the Atlantic Lumber Company, told Went-worth to go and bring in French, who is the principal defendant. At this time Wentworth owed no debt to French personally,. but French owned the stock of the Atlantic Lumber Company, a corporation, and managed and controlled its business, and was a creditor of the corporation to the amount of $18,000. The Atlantic Lumber Company was a creditor of Wentworth to the amount of $13,000 or more, and was his heaviest creditor. Besides this French was a personal friend of Wentworth, and desired to help him, because at a previous time Wentworth had aided French by indorsing his notes for the amount of $15,000, at a time when French needed accommodation. French was at once informed that Wentworth did not have the money to meet his obligations, and from that time French took an active part in the arrangement of Wentworth’s affairs, with two purposes [543]*543in view. The first was to save the Atlantic Lumber Company from any loss on account of Wentworth’s indebtedness to it, and the second to help Wentworth save some part of his assets from being applied in discharge of his other debts, by turning it over to the wife of Wentworth. As the first step in pursuance of these purposes Wentworth conveyed and French received Wentworth’s outside land in extinguishment of $7,000 of the $13,000 claim of the Atlantic Lumber Company. This left Wentworth with his mercantile business as his only resource. French next caused Wentworth to have created a corporation, the J. H. Wentworth Company, with a capital stock fixed at the sum of $20,000, in payment of which the stock, book accounts, horses and teams belonging to Wentworth’s business, and the equity of his mill and machinery were all transferred and conveyed to the corporation.

The charter of the corporation was issued on April 25,1898. The corporators were Wentworth, one Gilkey, his clerk and bookkeeper, and a Mr. Dickerman, a friend and neighbor of Wentworth’s. Dickerman was then an indorser for Wentworth to the amount of $5,000, and had a claim against him growing out of an old transaction in mining stocks, and also had a mortgage of $1,200 on a house the title of which stood in Mrs. Went-worth. The two hundred shares of the capital stock of the corporation were issued on April 29,1898, one share to Dicker-man, one share to Gilkey, and one hundred and ninety-eight shares to Wentworth. Dickerman paid nothing for his share, and Gilkey’s share was paid for by $100 given to him by Went-worth for that purpose. Of the one hundred and ninety-eight shares issued to Wentworth one hundred were pledged by him to Dickerman as collateral security for a note for $10,000 given by Wentworth to him, which note was also secured by a third mortgage of the mill and machinery. For this $10,000 note, Dickerman gave to Wentworth $7,800 in money, released his $1,200 mortgage on Mrs. Wentworth’s land, and gave up his claim growing out of the old mining stock transaction.

On May 3,1898, Wentworth pledged twenty of his remaining ninety-eight shares to secure payment of a note of $2,000 made by his wife on December 1, 1897, leaving him with seventy-eight shares unpledged. In paying in the capital stock he had [544]*544divested himself of all the assets of his business which could have been taken for his debts, which assets were his stock of lumber and supplies worth over $16,000, book accounts worth $5,000, and horses and teams worth $1,000. There was no sale for the shares of stock which he received in lieu of his assets transferred to the corporation in the paying in of its capital. The seventy-eight unpledged shares and the $7,800 delivered to him by Dickerman on the $10,000 note were all the means he had in hand with which to pay his debts, save the equities in the pledged shares.

French then caused Wentworth to call a meeting of his creditors and to offer them a compromise, promising to lend him $5,000 with which to pay them twenty-five' cents on, a dollar. The call was made early in May. At the meeting French became one of the committee. They recommended the creditors ' to accept thirty per cent of their claims, in full payment, and at an adjourned meeting held on May 13, 1898, the report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Terrace Corp. v. Commissioner
37 B.T.A. 263 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1938)
Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc.
8 N.E.2d 895 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Atherton v. Emerson
85 N.E. 530 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Poland v. Beal
78 N.E. 728 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Thorpe v. Pennock Mercantile Co.
108 N.W. 940 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 N.E. 125, 178 Mass. 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-french-mass-1901.