Margaret Cahill v. William S. Brown, Trustee-Appellee

Second Circuit

Margaret Cahill v. William S. Brown, Trustee-Appellee

266 F.2d 596, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4844

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1959

Docket25470_1

StatusPublished

This text of 266 F.2d 596 (Margaret Cahill v. William S. Brown, Trustee-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Margaret Cahill v. William S. Brown, Trustee-Appellee, 266 F.2d 596, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4844 (2d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order of the district court which reversed the order of the referee.

The central issue was whether $3,000 paid by check dated November 13, 1956 to the bankrupt, Charles W. Hyer, by his mother-in-law, Margaret Cahill, should be impressed with a trust and therefore should be returned to Mrs. Cahill by the trustee. Both before and after November 13, 1956 negotiations were under way with several insurance companies the purpose of which was to prevent bankruptcy, but these finally fell through. It was claimed by the appellant that the $3,000 was given in order to bring about an arrangement whereby the companies would consent to the continuance of the business, and the referee so held. But, as Judge Zavatt found, there is no evidence to support the findings of the referee. The record shows only that Mrs. Cahill’s daughter told her that her husband was in serious trouble and that she needed $3,000. Mrs. Cahill then went to her savings bank, procured a check for $3,000 to the order of the bankrupt, gave it to her daughter who then gave it to her husband, the bankrupt. This is all that Mrs. Cahill knew; nothing was said about any arrangements or what would be done with the money. Clearly the $3,000 check was an unconditional gift or loan, as Judge Zavatt concluded. There was no basis whatever for impressing a trust on the money.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order of the district court which reversed the order of the referee.

The central issue was whether $3,000 paid by check dated November 13, 1956 to the bankrupt, Charles W. Hyer, by his mother-in-law, Margaret Cahill, should be impressed with a trust and therefore should be returned to Mrs. Cahill by the trustee. Both before and after November 13, 1956 negotiations were under way with several insurance companies the purpose of which was to prevent bankruptcy, but these finally fell through. It was claimed by the appellant that the $3,000 was given in order to bring about an arrangement whereby the companies would consent to the continuance of the business, and the referee so held. But, as Judge Zavatt found, there is no evidence to support the findings of the referee. The record shows only that Mrs. Cahill’s daughter told her that her husband was in serious trouble and that she needed $3,000. Mrs. Cahill then went to her savings bank, procured a check for $3,000 to the order of the bankrupt, gave it to her daughter who then gave it to her husband, the bankrupt. This is all that Mrs. Cahill knew; nothing was said about any arrangements or what would be done with the money. Clearly the $3,000 check was an unconditional gift or loan, as Judge Zavatt concluded. There was no basis whatever for impressing a trust on the money.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 F.2d 596, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margaret-cahill-v-william-s-brown-trustee-appellee-ca2-1959.