In re Beerman

112 F. 663, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60
District Court, N.D. Georgia·Decided November 29, 1901·No. No. 663·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

NEWMAN, District Judge.

The report of the refere'e in this case as to the matter now in hearing is on the intervention filed by F. M. Powers, setting up and’asking to have enforced a mortgage for $200 on the stock of goods of the bankrupt. The question is whether or not this mortgage is void under the bankruptcy act. The facts show that the bankrupt, on the 15th day of June, 1901, owed J. J. & J. E. Maddox, wholesale merchants, $192; that at that time the agent of J. J. & J. E. Maddox procured Powers to lend to Beer-man, the bankrupt, the sum of $192, taking his note and a mortgage on his stock of goods for $200 to cover the amount loaned and interest; that a check was given by Powers to Beerman for $192, which, on the same date, was indorsed by Beerman to J. J. & J. E. Maddox, and collected by them, which is shown by the check and the indorse-ments thereon. The evidence on the subject was as follows:

F. M. Powers, the mortgagee and intervener here, testified: [665] going into bankruptcy. Mr. Beerman did not turn over the check for- the money—$192.00—in my office. I handed the check to Mr. Beerman, and he went out oí the office with Mr. Jackson. I knew that Mr. Beerman owed J. J. & J. E. Maddox $192.00, and I supposed that they would get the money on account oí their giving bond to indemnify me against loss. I did not calculate the per cent, at the time. I thought I was charging eight per cent, hut I see now that I was charging 12 per cent. I had information that McCord, Stewart & Co. had obtained a mortgage was the reason that I put the mortgage on record. It appears that they did not have any mortgage, and my information was untrue.”

[664] “I lent the money, thinking It was at eight per cent., at the suggestion of Hr. L. B. Jackson, agent for Messrs. J. J. & J. E. Maddox. I did not know Mr. Beerman, nor had never seen him. I had seen his place of business. Do not think X had any conference with Mr. Maddox. A bond was given me to indemnify me against loss by Mr. Maddox. This bond is in evidence. I think the bond and mortgage were all drawn about the same time, possibly not on the same date. I stated to Mr. Jackson that if they would make me perfectly secure I would lend the money for §8.00. This is the first time I have entered into this kind of a transaction. X did not see any member of the firm except Mr. L. B. Jackson. I told him- that Mr. Maddox should secure me. Mr. Jackson came to see me, and said: ‘X wish you to make this loan, and it is good without any bond. Mr. Beerman is in good shape.’ I did not know Mr. Maddox’s object. I wished to be secured. X did not rely on Mr. Beerman’s solvency,—perhaps partially, but not absolutely. I made no investigation except through Mr. Jackson. I suggested Mr. Maddox giving bond. I did not know absolutely that the money to be loaned was going to pay the debt of J. J. <& J. E. Maddox, but I thought so .at the time. I told Mr. Jackson to give me a bond, and I would loan the money. Mr. Jackson manifested much interest in the matter. I never spoke a single word to Mr. 'Beerman, nor did I rely on Mr. Beerman’s solvency. I requested that a bond was to be given me before I saw Mr. Beerman. I know of Mr. Jackson’s connection with J. J. & J. E. Maddox. J know that J. J. & J. E. Maddox got the money that I loaned Mr. Beerman. I had no agreement as to where the money was to go. I believe I knew where it was going from the special interest taken in the loan by Mr. Jackson. He manifested considerable interest in cutting down the interest I was to charge. Mr. Jackson had never before made any point on the interest that I charged. I knew the bond was good. I would not have loaned the money without the bond at that rate of interest. I might have loaned it without the bond at big interest I put one note in the bank, and it was returned unpaid. I was absent from the city when Mr. Beerman went into bankruptcy. I got a letter from Mr. Thomas that the note had been returned unpaid by the bank. I would not have loaned Mr. Beerman money had I known he was

[665] G. C. Beerman testified:

“I got the money in a check for $192.00. I did not get $200.00. I suppose I was paying $8.00 for interest. 1 turned over the cheek in the presence of Mr. Bowers, in his office, to Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson says to me, ‘Maddox will send you a receipt the next day.’ Mr. Jackson came down to my store on Gonriland street, and told me, ‘I know where y«u can get the money if you will pay us up our debt.’ Mr. Maddox promised to let me have more goods, but since the mortgage he only let me have one bill for $23.10. I had never seen Mr. Bowers before 1 went to. his office, lie has never been in my store, nor did lie ask me any questions as to my solvency, and I did not tell Mr. Bowers that X was solvent. 1 knew when I was getting the money that it was to go to Mr. Maddox. -1 agreed to pay it over before I borrowed it The understanding was that they were to extend future credit. I did not tell Mr. Powers anything at the time as to my solvency. Mr. Bowers did not ask me. I did not say that I would pay the notes. Mr. Powers did not agree to advance me any future credit at "that time. I ain positive, and swear, that 1 did not tell him I was solvent, or would meet the notes. I gave the check right away to Mr. Jackson, in Mr. Powers’ office, right in the presence of Mr. Bowers. Mr. Powers said he would not record the mortgage. After • I gave this mortgage, other creditors—McCord, Stewart & Co. and others—began to press me for payment. J. J. & J. K. Maddox refused to extend any further credit McCord, Stewart & Co. went back on me, and I was forced to go into bankruptcy. I paid all I could, and as far as I could. After I borrowed the $192.00, my stock remained about llie same, and was not increased any.”

L. B. Jackson testified:

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

In re Beerman, 112 F. 663, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60 (N.D. Ga. 1901).

112 F. 663 (In re Beerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCarron v. Aronson
1 F.2d 455 (D. Massachusetts, 1924)
Eyges v. Boylston Nat. Bank
294 F. 286 (D. Massachusetts, 1923)
Lowell v. Merchants' Nat. Bank
283 F. 124 (D. New Hampshire, 1922)
McKnight v. Shadbolt
168 P. 473 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)
Dean v. Davis
212 F. 88 (Fourth Circuit, 1914)
Walters v. Zimmerman
208 F. 62 (N.D. Ohio, 1913)
In re Virginia Hardwood Mfg. Co.
139 F. 209 (W.D. Arkansas, 1905)
Hackney v. Raymond Bros. Clarke Co.
94 N.W. 822 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1903)
In re Pease
129 F. 446 (E.D. Michigan, 1902)