In re Cramer

D. Minnesota

In re Cramer

6 F. Cas. 742, 13 Nat. Bank. Reg. 225

CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota

DecidedNovember 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 F. Cas. 742 (In re Cramer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Cramer, 6 F. Cas. 742, 13 Nat. Bank. Reg. 225 (mnd 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

NELSON, District Judge.

Section 5021 of the Revised Statutes authorizes the recovery by the assignee of all property received by a person having reasonable cause to believe that a debtor was insolvent, and knowing that a fraud on the bankrupt act was intend-' ed. Section 5128 defines the fraudulent preferences forbidden by the act; and section 5084 declares under what circumstances and when a creditor who has received a fraudulent preference may prove the claim on account of which the preference is made or given. The latter section forbids proof of a claim on account of which a preference is given until the creditor first surrenders to the; assignee all • property, or advantage received finder such preference." I think, in the light of these sections, inasmuch as judgment has been entered in favor of the assignee, in the suit brought against Kiefer & Heck, and [743]*743the fraudulent preference clearly established,' they are debarred from proving their claim. The assignee has been compelled to seek the aid of the court to recover the advantage sought to be obtained by these creditors; they contested his right to recover, and being defeated have constructively made themselves a party to the fraud, and the locus poenitentiae has passed; the payment of the judgment is not a compliance with the terms of section 5084. Although, in case of actual fraud a preferred creditor might prove for a moiety, he can do so only when he has ful- ■ filled the requirements of section 5084, and made a surrender of the advantage-obtained by the preference. In this case there is no actual fraud, and if these claimants had surrendered their advantage before suit, and perhaps before judgment, proof would have been allowed of their whole debt The right ' of these creditors to prove a claim represented by a note for seventy-six dollars is not seriously contested. The objection of the assignee is sustained, except to that extent Ordered accordingly.

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

NELSON, District Judge.

Section 5021 of the Revised Statutes authorizes the recovery by the assignee of all property received by a person having reasonable cause to believe that a debtor was insolvent, and knowing that a fraud on the bankrupt act was intend-' ed. Section 5128 defines the fraudulent preferences forbidden by the act; and section 5084 declares under what circumstances and when a creditor who has received a fraudulent preference may prove the claim on account of which the preference is made or given. The latter section forbids proof of a claim on account of which a preference is given until the creditor first surrenders to the; assignee all • property, or advantage received finder such preference." I think, in the light of these sections, inasmuch as judgment has been entered in favor of the assignee, in the suit brought against Kiefer & Heck, and [743]*743the fraudulent preference clearly established,' they are debarred from proving their claim. The assignee has been compelled to seek the aid of the court to recover the advantage sought to be obtained by these creditors; they contested his right to recover, and being defeated have constructively made themselves a party to the fraud, and the locus poenitentiae has passed; the payment of the judgment is not a compliance with the terms of section 5084. Although, in case of actual fraud a preferred creditor might prove for a moiety, he can do so only when he has ful- ■ filled the requirements of section 5084, and made a surrender of the advantage-obtained by the preference. In this case there is no actual fraud, and if these claimants had surrendered their advantage before suit, and perhaps before judgment, proof would have been allowed of their whole debt The right ' of these creditors to prove a claim represented by a note for seventy-six dollars is not seriously contested. The objection of the assignee is sustained, except to that extent Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. Cas. 742, 13 Nat. Bank. Reg. 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cramer-mnd-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack