Moore v. John H. Smith & Sons

W.D. New York

Moore v. John H. Smith & Sons

205 F. 431, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1574

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York

DecidedApril 8, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 F. 431 (Moore v. John H. Smith & Sons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. John H. Smith & Sons, 205 F. 431, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1574 (W.D.N.Y. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HAZEL, J.

It' will suffice to state, in the main, my conclusions in this case. I find that the bankrupt, while insolvent, within four months before filing the petition in bankruptcy, procured, or suffered to he entered against him, in Clearfield county, Pa., two judgments [432]*432for the sums of $689.83 and $561.16, respectively, the first judgment being in favor of the defendants John H. Smith & Sons, and the second in favor of the defendants Dories & Co.; that a few days afterwards a sheriff’s sale was had under said judgments, at which the stock of goods of the bankrupt was bid in and sold for the benefit pf the judgment creditors; that by the recovery of such judgments the defendants received preferences, which they had reasonable cause to believe were intended as preferences. Section 60b of the Bankruptcy Act, before amendment (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 562 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3445]). The trustee in this action is entitled to a decree avoiding such preferences, and to the value of the stock of goods sold at sheriff’s sale for the benefit of the defendants on the execution issued to enforce the judgments recovered by the defendants Smith'& Sons.

The value of the stock of goods bought at sheriff’s sale by Smith & Sons for the benefit of the defendants is claimed by the plaintiff to have been $2,011.66, in support of which claim testimony was given by the witness Staver, the sheriff who levied on the goods; but I cannot accept his estimate of the value as conclusive. The defendants have testified that 'the property was not of a much greater value than the' amount at which it was bid in at the sale. In determining the value of the goods, the evidence in its entirety must be taken into consideration, and the possibility pf deterioration of the goods and the fact th'at they were struck off at the price they were at a sale where numerous bidders were present would seem to indicate that they were of considerably less value than claimed by the plaintiff.

In my opinion the fair .value of the property did not exceed $900, for which amount the trustee may enter a decree, but without interest and without costs, because of his delay in bringing this suit to a hearing.

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

HAZEL, J.

It' will suffice to state, in the main, my conclusions in this case. I find that the bankrupt, while insolvent, within four months before filing the petition in bankruptcy, procured, or suffered to he entered against him, in Clearfield county, Pa., two judgments [432]*432for the sums of $689.83 and $561.16, respectively, the first judgment being in favor of the defendants John H. Smith & Sons, and the second in favor of the defendants Dories & Co.; that a few days afterwards a sheriff’s sale was had under said judgments, at which the stock of goods of the bankrupt was bid in and sold for the benefit pf the judgment creditors; that by the recovery of such judgments the defendants received preferences, which they had reasonable cause to believe were intended as preferences. Section 60b of the Bankruptcy Act, before amendment (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 562 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3445]). The trustee in this action is entitled to a decree avoiding such preferences, and to the value of the stock of goods sold at sheriff’s sale for the benefit of the defendants on the execution issued to enforce the judgments recovered by the defendants Smith'& Sons.

The value of the stock of goods bought at sheriff’s sale by Smith & Sons for the benefit of the defendants is claimed by the plaintiff to have been $2,011.66, in support of which claim testimony was given by the witness Staver, the sheriff who levied on the goods; but I cannot accept his estimate of the value as conclusive. The defendants have testified that 'the property was not of a much greater value than the' amount at which it was bid in at the sale. In determining the value of the goods, the evidence in its entirety must be taken into consideration, and the possibility pf deterioration of the goods and the fact th'at they were struck off at the price they were at a sale where numerous bidders were present would seem to indicate that they were of considerably less value than claimed by the plaintiff.

In my opinion the fair .value of the property did not exceed $900, for which amount the trustee may enter a decree, but without interest and without costs, because of his delay in bringing this suit to a hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F. 431, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-john-h-smith-sons-nywd-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack