Coaldale Coal Co. v. State Bank

Centre County Court of Common Pleas

Coaldale Coal Co. v. State Bank

21 A. 811, 142 Pa. 288, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 735

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Centre County

DecidedMay 4, 1891

DocketNo. 215

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 21 A. 811 (Coaldale Coal Co. v. State Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Centre County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coaldale Coal Co. v. State Bank, 21 A. 811, 142 Pa. 288, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 735 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

A careful examination of this record, and of the fourteen assignments of error, fails to disclose any sufficient reason for reversing the judgment. There was nothing illegal or improper in the formation of the plaintiff company, nor in the transfer to it by Holt & Chipman of the property in question. At the time the company was formed, that firm appears to have heen solvent, and there is nothing to show that it was intended as a fraud upon their present or future creditors. It was not a withdrawal of their property from the grasp of creditors. On the contrary, it remained subject to their claims, though in a changed form. The interest of the partners in the corporation was represented by stock. This stock was as much liable to the demands of creditors as was the property itself before the formation of the company. The fact that the greater portion of this stock was subsequently pledged by Holt & Chipman to certain of their creditors, does not alter the case. It was not shown that the debts for which it was pledged were not bona fide, and the firm had a right to prefer creditors in this manner. [301]*301This is an attempt to sweep away the assets of the company for the benefit of the unsecured creditors. With this accomplished, the stock in the hands of the pledgees would become worthless; so that the case comes down to a contest between two classes of creditors, neither of which has any especial equity over the other. Both must stand upon their legal rights, and the appellants have not shown any right to levy upon and sell the property of the coal company in satisfaction of their executions against Holt & Ohipman.

These general remarks are all that we consider essential to a disposition of the case. To discuss it in detail would consume a large amount of time, and lead to no profitable result.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

A careful examination of this record, and of the fourteen assignments of error, fails to disclose any sufficient reason for reversing the judgment. There was nothing illegal or improper in the formation of the plaintiff company, nor in the transfer to it by Holt & Chipman of the property in question. At the time the company was formed, that firm appears to have heen solvent, and there is nothing to show that it was intended as a fraud upon their present or future creditors. It was not a withdrawal of their property from the grasp of creditors. On the contrary, it remained subject to their claims, though in a changed form. The interest of the partners in the corporation was represented by stock. This stock was as much liable to the demands of creditors as was the property itself before the formation of the company. The fact that the greater portion of this stock was subsequently pledged by Holt & Chipman to certain of their creditors, does not alter the case. It was not shown that the debts for which it was pledged were not bona fide, and the firm had a right to prefer creditors in this manner. [301]*301This is an attempt to sweep away the assets of the company for the benefit of the unsecured creditors. With this accomplished, the stock in the hands of the pledgees would become worthless; so that the case comes down to a contest between two classes of creditors, neither of which has any especial equity over the other. Both must stand upon their legal rights, and the appellants have not shown any right to levy upon and sell the property of the coal company in satisfaction of their executions against Holt & Ohipman.

These general remarks are all that we consider essential to a disposition of the case. To discuss it in detail would consume a large amount of time, and lead to no profitable result.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A. 811, 142 Pa. 288, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coaldale-coal-co-v-state-bank-pactcomplcentre-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack