Barton v. Geiler

Supreme Court

Barton v. Geiler

108 U.S. 161, 2 S. Ct. 387, 27 L. Ed. 687, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1018

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 26, 1883

Docket188

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 108 U.S. 161 (Barton v. Geiler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barton v. Geiler, 108 U.S. 161, 2 S. Ct. 387, 27 L. Ed. 687, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1018 (1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit in equity brought in a State court of, Tennessee by Barton, as assignee in bankruptcy of Kessler & Har- *162 mon, to set aside a conveyance made by Kessler, one of tbe bankrupts, to Geiler, and the only question presented by the writ of error is, whether upon the testimony embodied in the record and considered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in the determination of the cause, it should have been found that the conveyance was in fraud, of the bankrupt law. The question is entirely one of fact. There can be no dispute about the law. It is sufficient to say that, after a careful examination of the testimony, we are satisfied with the conclusion finally reached below. It would serve no useful purpose to set forth in an'opinion the details of the evidence, of to enter into any discussion as to its effect.

The decree of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit in equity brought in a State court of, Tennessee by Barton, as assignee in bankruptcy of Kessler & Har- *162 mon, to set aside a conveyance made by Kessler, one of tbe bankrupts, to Geiler, and the only question presented by the writ of error is, whether upon the testimony embodied in the record and considered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in the determination of the cause, it should have been found that the conveyance was in fraud, of the bankrupt law. The question is entirely one of fact. There can be no dispute about the law. It is sufficient to say that, after a careful examination of the testimony, we are satisfied with the conclusion finally reached below. It would serve no useful purpose to set forth in an'opinion the details of the evidence, of to enter into any discussion as to its effect.

The decree of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 U.S. 161, 2 S. Ct. 387, 27 L. Ed. 687, 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-geiler-scotus-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack