Cheney v. Matthews

Fifth Circuit

Cheney v. Matthews

7 F.2d 1018, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3668

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1925

DocketNo. 4541

StatusPublished

This text of 7 F.2d 1018 (Cheney v. Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cheney v. Matthews, 7 F.2d 1018, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3668 (5th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By the bill in this case a trustee in bankruptcy attacked as fraudulent and void, as against the bankrupt’s creditors, a sale and conveyance of land made by the bankrupt to his father, the appellee, considerably more than four months before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. In our opinion the evidence adduced was riot such as to justify the setting aside of the court’s finding to the effect that appellee’s purchase of the land was in good faith, at a time when he had no reason to think that the seller was insolvent, and was unaccompanied by any intention on the part of the appellee to hinder or defraud the seller’s creditors. The decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By the bill in this case a trustee in bankruptcy attacked as fraudulent and void, as against the bankrupt’s creditors, a sale and conveyance of land made by the bankrupt to his father, the appellee, considerably more than four months before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. In our opinion the evidence adduced was riot such as to justify the setting aside of the court’s finding to the effect that appellee’s purchase of the land was in good faith, at a time when he had no reason to think that the seller was insolvent, and was unaccompanied by any intention on the part of the appellee to hinder or defraud the seller’s creditors. The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F.2d 1018, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheney-v-matthews-ca5-1925.