Parke v. See Hop & Co.

Hawaii Supreme Court

Parke v. See Hop & Co.

6 Haw. 747

DecidedMay 7, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Haw. 747 (Parke v. See Hop & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parke v. See Hop & Co., 6 Haw. 747 (haw 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Decision of

McCully, J.

This case is submitted to the Court, the jury being waived, on an agreed statement of facts.

Upon consideration of them and of the records referred to, I think judgment should be for the plaintiff.

The finding of the Court in the case of See Hop & Co. vs. Soper (in Banco, January Term, 1887: see VII Hawn.) was, that the giving of the mortgage, found to be fraudulent, was in itself an act of bankruptcy. The payment of this amount ($286.90) was directly in pursuance of the mortgage and the possession thereunder. This fact will distinguish this payment from payments which might be made by a person actually insolvent to creditors not colluding with him in a fraudulent transfer of his whole property. The diligence and assiduity of a creditor who secures payments from a debtor, who afterwards becomes bankrupt, is a different thing from the receipt of realizations from property transferred by fraud, which itself works bankruptcy.

I do not regard the payment of money under the former circumstances as such a “transfer of property” as contemplated by Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act (1884) ; but the act in question is the payment of money received for property so transferred.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Decision of

McCully, J.

This case is submitted to the Court, the jury being waived, on an agreed statement of facts.

Upon consideration of them and of the records referred to, I think judgment should be for the plaintiff.

The finding of the Court in the case of See Hop & Co. vs. Soper (in Banco, January Term, 1887: see VII Hawn.) was, that the giving of the mortgage, found to be fraudulent, was in itself an act of bankruptcy. The payment of this amount ($286.90) was directly in pursuance of the mortgage and the possession thereunder. This fact will distinguish this payment from payments which might be made by a person actually insolvent to creditors not colluding with him in a fraudulent transfer of his whole property. The diligence and assiduity of a creditor who secures payments from a debtor, who afterwards becomes bankrupt, is a different thing from the receipt of realizations from property transferred by fraud, which itself works bankruptcy.

I do not regard the payment of money under the former circumstances as such a “transfer of property” as contemplated by Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act (1884) ; but the act in question is the payment of money received for property so transferred.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Haw. 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parke-v-see-hop-co-haw-1887.