Graham v. Hollister

13 F.2d 394, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1182
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan
DecidedMay 28, 1926
StatusPublished

This text of 13 F.2d 394 (Graham v. Hollister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graham v. Hollister, 13 F.2d 394, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1182 (W.D. Mich. 1926).

Opinion

RAYMOND, District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon petition and answers which sot forth the conflicting views of two classes of creditors who are beneficiaries under a trust instrument dated February 16, 1907, by which William Harrison conveyed his entire interest in the Harrison Land Company, Limited, to certain trustees for the benefit of creditors. A general statement of the facts is necessary to a clear understanding of the present issues.

During the year 1906 the financial affairs of the Harrison Wagon Company became involved. William Harrison was at that time practically the sole owner of the capital stock of that company as well as of the capital stock of the Harrison Land Company, Limited. Pressure by creditors resulted in the execution by him on February 16, 1907, of two trust mortgages, by one of which he conveyed to certain trustees all of his stock in the wagon company, and by the other all of his stock in the land company. September 12, 1907, a petition in bankruptcy was filed [396]*396against the wagon company, resulting in an adjudication on January 17, 1908, and the affairs of the wagon company were thereafter administered by the bankruptcy court.

November 19, 1907, a petition in bankruptcy was filed. against William Harrison. His death occurred March 30, 1908, and his estate was adjudged bankrupt on October 16, 1908. Robert Graham, then one of the trustees under the land company trust mortgage, was elected trustee in bankruptcy. He resigned as trustee under the mortgage, and on February 6, 1909, filed the bill of complaint in this cause against the remaining trustees for the purpose of setting aside the trust instrument. It was alleged in the bill of complaint, 'among other grounds, that the trust instrument was void as a preference, fraudulent conveyance, and general assignment not in compliance with state laws. Much testimony was taken and a final decree was rendered on May 31, 1912, by which the trust instrument was held valid. The result of this decree has been that the-business affairs of the Harrison Land Company, Limited, have, since February 16, 1907, been administered by trustees under the terms of the trust instrument, and are still 'being so administered.

The bankrupt estate of the Harrison Wagon Company was finally closed on February 28,1911, and that of William Harrison on October 9,1914.

The difficulties of the present situation grow out of the fact that, at the time of the financial troubles hereinbefore referred to, there were three classes of creditors and three separate and distinct funds which were available for payment of some or all the different classes of creditors.- The rights of the various classes of creditors in the assets of the Harrison Land Company, Limited, trust have been in dispute from the beginning, and, unless adjudicated by the decree of May 31, 1912 (a matter which is in dispute in this proceeding), the question has not been determined.

At the time of the execution of the trust instruments,' the financial standings, respectively, of the Harrison Wagon Company, the Harrison Land Company, and William Harrison individually were not dear. The Harrison Wagon Company owed debts of about $445,000. It had assets sufficient for the creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings to receive- dividends aggregating 59.9 per cent. Á' large portion of the indebtedness was in the form of promissory notes indorsed by William Harrison. About $120,000 of the indebtedness, however, prior to the execution of the trust instrument by William Harrison, existed only as an obligation against the Har-' rison Wagon Company. The relative rights of these two classes of creditors became a matter of contention soon after the execution' of the trust mortgage, and has continued to| the present. The contentions now presented' grow out of the following provisions of the! trust instrument dated February 16, 1907:

“(h) To use my interest in said Harrison; Land Company, Limited, and the avails there-1 of for the purpose of paying any indebted-1 ness for which I am now or. hereafter may be .absolutely or contingently liable, and any indebtedness of the Harrison Wagon Company, of whose stock I am the owner of 34,923 shares of a total of 35,000 shares, and for most of the indebtedness whereof I am absolutely or contingently liable.

“(j) And having paid the debts aforesaid to return said stock to me.”

—and the provisions of the decree of May 31, 1912, which read as follows: |

“It is further ordered and decreed that creditors of the Harrison Wagon Company who have not the personal indorsement of William Harrison are equitably entitled to share in the proceeds of the trust instrument mentioned in the sixth paragraph of the bill of complaint, and that such creditors are entitled to share pro rata in the distribution of the surplus of the trust fund- remaining after the payment of the amount set forth in the foregoing paragraph, and the payment of the debts of the Harrison Land Company, Limited, with the individual creditors of William Harrison; that for the purpose of such distribution said defendant trustees shall adopt and base such distribution to the various creditors of the Harrison Wagon Company and of William Harrison upon the amounts found to be due to such creditors in the allowance of their claims by the referee in bankruptcy in the matter of the estate of the Harrison Wagon Company, bankrupt, and in the matter of the estate of William Harrison, bankrupt, but no distribution shall be made by said trustee defendants until distribution shall have been made of the estate of William Harrison, bankrupt, among the creditors of the said estate; that in such distribution by the defendant trustees the creditors of William Harrison, both direct and by virtue of his indorsement, shall be entitled to receive dividends upon the amount of their claims as hereinbefore provided, without reference to the application of the dividends which they may receive in the distribution by [397]*397the trustees of William Harrison, bankrupt, until with the dividends received by them from the estate of the Harrison Wagon Company, bankrupt, from the estate of William Harrison, bankrupt, and from dividends paid by said defendant trustees, their said claims shall be paid in full.”

At the time of the decree, the Harrison Wagon Company bankrupt estate had been finally closed. After applying the dividends received from that estate, there was still due creditors who had the personal indorsement of William Harrison the sum of approximately $129,000, and to creditors who did not have the personal indorsement of William Harrison the sum of approximately $49,000. Creditors having such personal indorsement proved the remainder of their respective claims against his individual bankrupt estate and received therefrom dividends of 45.2 per cent, on their claims as proved in that estate, which amounted to a dividend of 18.1252 per cent, upon their claims as originally proved against the estate of Harrison Wagon Company, bankrupt. After both classes of creditors had received their dividends from the two bankrupt estates, there remained a balance due to creditors not having the indorsement of William Harrison, the sum of approximately $49,000, and to creditors having such indorsement the sum of approximately $71,000. There was also due to individual creditors of William Harrison, on claims in no way connected with the Harrison Wagon Company, approximately $1,350.

This condition of affairs remained unchanged from 1914 to 1919, when the trustees under the trust instrument in question first paid a dividend.

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

Related

Minnesota Co. v. Chamberlain
70 U.S. 704 (Supreme Court, 1866)
Barnes v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway
122 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1887)
Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville
173 U.S. 131 (Supreme Court, 1899)
Haskell v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.
224 U.S. 217 (Supreme Court, 1912)
Mayor of Vicksburg v. Henson
231 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1913)
Towne v. Eisner
245 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court, 1918)
Marin Rock Co. v. E. B. & A. L. Stone Co.
194 P. 732 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
In re E. Bement's Sons
114 N.W. 327 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Board of Com'rs v. Hurley
169 F. 92 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)
Chemical Nat. Bank v. Armstrong
59 F. 372 (Sixth Circuit, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 F.2d 394, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-hollister-miwd-1926.