Gayle v. Jones

74 F. Supp. 262, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2066
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedNovember 4, 1947
DocketCiv. No. 1566
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 F. Supp. 262 (Gayle v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gayle v. Jones, 74 F. Supp. 262, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2066 (W.D. La. 1947).

Opinion

DAWKINS, District Judge.

This suit was filed July 13, 1945, by the trustee in bankruptcy of James W. Jones, Jr., against the said James W. Jones, Jr., called the bankrupt, his wife, Mrs. Elora E. Jones, his daughter, Mrs. Ernestine Cook, his adopted son, James Lee Jones, his nephew, J. D. Smith, and two corporations, Rio Hondo Land Co., Inc., called Rio Hondo, and the St. Denis Securities Co., Inc., called the St. Denis. The bankrupt filed his petition for voluntary adjudication and was adjudged a bankrupt on August 23, 1943. The principal claim against the bankrupt, the collection of which was the chief reason for bringing this action, was by the State of Louisiana for a cost bill of between $4,000 and $5,-000 incurred in the proceeding for the removal of the bankrupt from the office of judge of the Tenth District of the State.

The petition alleges that the defendant corporations and another, subsequently dissolved, Central Securities and Title Co., called Central, were mere shams or dummies, created by the bankrupt and the said members of his family, for the sole purpose of hiding and concealing his property from the pursuit of his creditors. All individual defendants are charged with knowingly participating in the scheme. It [264]*264is not deemed necessary to recite at length the many transactions and circumstances alleged to support the charge. However, it is alleged that “as of March 18, 1936” the bankrupt was indebted to L. Dow Wardlaw in the sum of $110, and to Central Lumber Co. for $682.75, “which remained unpaid at the time of bankruptcy”, and these with other debts, principally the cost of a proceeding for the removal of the bankrupt from office as district judge for the 10th Judicial District, composed of the parishes of Natchitoches and Red River, shown in his schedules, amounted to $4,-698.03; and that the total property surrendered was listed in said schedules as of the value of $1,330, $1,000 of which was claimed as exempt, being law Books, etc., used by the bankrupt in the practice of law.

It is further alleged that some 1,8,00 acres of land and a lot of ground with a four-story brick building thereon, situated in the city of Natchitoches, Louisiana, was and still is the property of the bankrupt, for the reason that all the transactions, including the organization of the several corporations, conveyances of property by and to them and to the individual defendants, as detailed in the complaint, were and are mere simulations.

A joint answer was filed by the bankrupt, his wife, daughter and the Rio Hon-do, denying generally the allegations of the petition and with much detail, separate answers were filed by the bankrupt as attorney appointed for the foster son and the nephew, absentees, as was also done by the St. Denis, represented by other counsel.

The Facts.

In 1920 Central Abstract Co., Inc., called Abstract Co., was organized to make and sell abstracts of, title in the Parish of Natchitoches. The bankrupt was the principal stockholder, and shares in smaller amounts were taken by other persons. It operated for a few years and became dormant, in which condition it remained for some 10 to 15 years. Its property, consisting of abstract books, furniture and fixtures, was left in the possession of the bankrupt-. In October 1936, the shares of stock held by persons other than the bankrupt were acquired in the names of the daughter and the nephew. On October 14th of that year, Central was organized, in which the bankrupt subscribed for 150 shares of the par value of $15,000, the daughter 10 shares, $1,000, the foster son 10 shares, $1,000, and the nephew 10 shares, $1,000. The daughter and nephew each transferred their 10 shares of the Abstract Co. for their entire subscription in Central. The stock held by them in the Abstract Co., had, immediately preceding the organization of Central, been acquired from the former holders for a fraction of its face value or par value (five shares from L. N. Scarborough, par value $500, for $75 or 15^ on the dollar). The purchase from Scarborough was negotiated by the bankrupt for the daughter. The bankrupt claims to have paid for his stock by also transferring the old shares in the Abstract Co. and conveying to Central notes payable to his own order and secured by mortgage upon his real estate consisting of some 1,400 acres of land. A check for $1,-000 was issued for the stock of the foster son, who was at that time 12 years old.

On April 15, 1930 the bankrupt had given a mortgage and note of $300 as part of the purchase price of certain of these lands, and on May 10, 1935, he had executed another note and mortgage on said lands likewise payable to his own order for the sum of $1,000 due October 15, 1935, which when endorsed, became negotiable by delivery. Both of these notes remained unpaid in the fall of 1936, when he, the bankrupt, executed other notes, also payable to his own order as follows: October 24, 1936 for $10,000, due January 1, 1937; November 10, 1936 for $2,000, due March 1, 1937; and November 20, 1936 for $5,-000, due November 15, 1937. Thus, within a period of less than 30 days, he had encumbered his real estate to the extent of $17,000 with notes negotiable by delivery and which, added to the two previous mortgages, made a grand total of $18,300, all of which was either past due or maturing within less than one year, the bulk of it within four months.

On November 23, 1936, Rio Hondo was organized. Its stock was issued as follows: To the bankrupt 30 shares, par value $3,-[265]*265000; to the daughter, foster son and nephew, one share each of the par value of $100; and one share to J. G. Gibbs, attorney. On December 30, 1936, the bankrupt executed a deed to Rio Hondo, covering all his real estate, for the recited consideration of $1,200 in cash and the assumption of the five mortgage notes, above described, beginning with the first of $300, dated April 5, 1930, down to and including the last of $5,000, dated November 20, 1936.

At the time of these corporate transactions and transfers, the bankrupt owed debts and was engaged in litigation as follows: (1) he was being sued by the Shreveport Long Leaf Lumber Co. on a note for $2,184.32, dated December 22, 1932, bearing interest of 8 per cent and attorneys’ fees. This suit had first been filed on the 8th day of January, 1935, but servive thereon was not accepted by the bankrupt until November 18, 1935.

The papers in this suit disappeared from the office of the clerk of the court, of which bankrupt was judge, and on February 19, 1936, plaintiff therein filed a petition setting forth this fact, took a non-suit and entered a new action. The bankrupt filed his answer to this second suit November 20, 1936, the same day that he executed the last mortgage for $5,000. Notwithstanding the fact that he had asked for and been given extensions on the Lumber Co. note, he alleged, under oath, that he had “at no time owed Shreveport Long Leaf Lumber Co. any amount * * * and the note was signed through error and without any consideration whatsoever * *

When the case was finally tried plaintiff introduced the note in evidence, and the bankrupt offered no defense whatever. There was judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for, but the bankrupt took a suspensive appeal. In order to do so, he was required to give a bond for one and a half times the amount of the judgment with interest conditioned to pay the judgment, if affirmed. This bond was for the sum of $4,782. The surety on the appeal bond was John Williams, who swore that he owned property sufficient to satisfy this amount over and above his lawful exemptions.

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

Related

Haase v. Chapman
308 F. Supp. 399 (W.D. Missouri, 1969)
Midland-Guardian of Pensacola, Inc. v. Carr
288 F. Supp. 499 (E.D. Louisiana, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 F. Supp. 262, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gayle-v-jones-lawd-1947.