J. R. Beaton Co. v. Berberich

D.C. Circuit

J. R. Beaton Co. v. Berberich

135 F.2d 831, 77 U.S. App. D.C. 377, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3427

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1943

DocketNo. 8132

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 F.2d 831 (J. R. Beaton Co. v. Berberich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. R. Beaton Co. v. Berberich, 135 F.2d 831, 77 U.S. App. D.C. 377, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3427 (D.C. Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, Associate Justice.

On April 23, 1934, appellant recovered judgment against appellee Joseph A. Berberich; but was unable to satisfy the same. On December 16, 1937, seeking to reach three alleged assets of that appellee, it brought suit in equity, not to enforce a lien of judgment,¹ but to declare void certain transfers of title, and of interests, from appellee Joseph A. Berberich to other persons, who also appear as appellees on this appeal. Appellant relies upon Section 12 — 401 of the District of Columbia Code² and the case turns upon the application of that section.

In connection with each conveyance or transfer, which appellant challenged, it was necessary to determine, as a question of fact, whether Joseph A. Berberich’s intention was to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditor, appellant. In making such a determination, certain rebuttable presumptions go into the balance, in favor of the creditor; but if it appears, from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, that the challenged acts of the parties to the conveyance are consistent with an honest purpose, then the presumptions are overcome.³ Every case depends upon its own circumstances, and the vital question is always the good faith of the transaction.⁴

The able and experienced judge who tried the case concluded, from the circumstances revealed by the evidence, and his observation of the witnesses, that all the transactions, here involved, were consistent with an honest purpose, and were free from fraud and wrongdoing. A careful examination of the record suggests to us no valid reason for questioning his determination.

Affirmed.

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

MILLER, Associate Justice.

On April 23, 1934, appellant recovered judgment against appellee Joseph A. Berberich; but was unable to satisfy the same. On December 16, 1937, seeking to reach three alleged assets of that appellee, it brought suit in equity, not to enforce a lien of judgment,¹ but to declare void certain transfers of title, and of interests, from appellee Joseph A. Berberich to other persons, who also appear as appellees on this appeal. Appellant relies upon Section 12 — 401 of the District of Columbia Code² and the case turns upon the application of that section.

In connection with each conveyance or transfer, which appellant challenged, it was necessary to determine, as a question of fact, whether Joseph A. Berberich’s intention was to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditor, appellant. In making such a determination, certain rebuttable presumptions go into the balance, in favor of the creditor; but if it appears, from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, that the challenged acts of the parties to the conveyance are consistent with an honest purpose, then the presumptions are overcome.³ Every case depends upon its own circumstances, and the vital question is always the good faith of the transaction.⁴

The able and experienced judge who tried the case concluded, from the circumstances revealed by the evidence, and his observation of the witnesses, that all the transactions, here involved, were consistent with an honest purpose, and were free from fraud and wrongdoing. A careful examination of the record suggests to us no valid reason for questioning his determination.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 F.2d 831, 77 U.S. App. D.C. 377, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-r-beaton-co-v-berberich-cadc-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack