McCormick v. Solinsky

152 F. 984, 82 C.C.A. 134, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4366
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 15, 1907·No. No. 1,633·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM,"

Oil the case made, the contract by the Citizens’ National Bank of Beaumont, under which it advanced the money to pay the composition to creditors in the bankruptcy of E. N. Brown, was illegal, because a part of the consideration thereof was that the bank’s debt against the bankrupt should be paid in full, notwithstanding the composition.

Solinsky was a party to the illegal contract, and therein agreed as a part of the inducement that he would return to the bank the amounts received by him under the composition as one of the creditors of the bankrupt, Brown. The present suit, being one to recover from Solin-sky the amounts received by him under the composition, is clearly a suit to recover moneys knowingly advanced under an illegal contract.

The.judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.

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

McCormick v. Solinsky, 152 F. 984, 82 C.C.A. 134, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4366 (5th Cir. 1907).

152 F. 984 (McCormick v. Solinsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lieblein v. George
160 N.W. 538 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)