Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. v. Childs

Fifth Circuit

Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. v. Childs

108 F.2d 734, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 2635

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 28, 1939

DocketNo. 8933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 F.2d 734 (Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. v. Childs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. v. Childs, 108 F.2d 734, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 2635 (5th Cir. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellee, as trustee in bankruptcy of Paramount Dairy Company, brought this suit under the provisions of Section 60 National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96, to recover preferential payments made to appellant by the bankrupt. It was tried to a jury and a verdict was rendered in appellee’s favor, upon which judgment was entered. Errors are assigned to the overruling of a plea of res adjudicata and to the denial of a directed verdict.

The plea of res adjudicata is based upon a judgment of the Superior Court of De Kalb County, Georgia, dismissing on demurrer a suit brought by appellee against Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. (appellant), Southern Dairy Corporation, and four individuals, charging them, in effect, with fraudulent conversion of the assets of the bankrupt. That suit was brought under the law of Georgia and sounded in tort. Recovery of preferences was not an issue in that suit and the question was not decided. The suit at bar is based upon a right given the trustee by a Federal statute. Fraud is not an ingredient. While the parties are the same, it is evident the cause of action is different. The plea of res adjudicata was properly overruled. Troxell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 227 U.S. 434, 33 S.Ct. 274, 57 L.Ed. 586.

The motion for a directed verdict was on the ground that there was no proof showing the bankrupt was insolvent at the times the preferences were received. It is further contended it was not shown appellant had reasonable cause to know the bankrupt was insolvent or that it was being granted preferences. The amount of the verdict is not disputed. On this point it is sufficient to say we find substantial evidence in the record tending to support the verdict.

No prejudicial error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

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

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellee, as trustee in bankruptcy of Paramount Dairy Company, brought this suit under the provisions of Section 60 National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96, to recover preferential payments made to appellant by the bankrupt. It was tried to a jury and a verdict was rendered in appellee’s favor, upon which judgment was entered. Errors are assigned to the overruling of a plea of res adjudicata and to the denial of a directed verdict.

The plea of res adjudicata is based upon a judgment of the Superior Court of De Kalb County, Georgia, dismissing on demurrer a suit brought by appellee against Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. (appellant), Southern Dairy Corporation, and four individuals, charging them, in effect, with fraudulent conversion of the assets of the bankrupt. That suit was brought under the law of Georgia and sounded in tort. Recovery of preferences was not an issue in that suit and the question was not decided. The suit at bar is based upon a right given the trustee by a Federal statute. Fraud is not an ingredient. While the parties are the same, it is evident the cause of action is different. The plea of res adjudicata was properly overruled. Troxell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 227 U.S. 434, 33 S.Ct. 274, 57 L.Ed. 586.

The motion for a directed verdict was on the ground that there was no proof showing the bankrupt was insolvent at the times the preferences were received. It is further contended it was not shown appellant had reasonable cause to know the bankrupt was insolvent or that it was being granted preferences. The amount of the verdict is not disputed. On this point it is sufficient to say we find substantial evidence in the record tending to support the verdict.

No prejudicial error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F.2d 734, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 2635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-grocery-stores-inc-v-childs-ca5-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack