Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Co.

193 U.S. 526, 24 S. Ct. 552, 48 L. Ed. 776, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 893
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 4, 1904
Docket181
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 193 U.S. 526 (Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Co., 193 U.S. 526, 24 S. Ct. 552, 48 L. Ed. 776, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 893 (1904).

Opinion

*527 The Chief Justice:

Two questions are propounded by this certificate, namely:

“1. Where a creditor has a claim for a balance due against an insolvent debtor afterwards adjudicated a bankrupt, upon an open account for goods sold and delivered four months before the adjudication in bankruptcy, and during said period makes a number of sales of merchandise on credit to the insolvent debtor, which becomes a part of the debtor’s estate, and during the same period receives payments of sums on account, from time to time, which payments are received in good faith without knowledge of the debtor’s insolvency on the part of the creditor, the sales exceeding in amount during said period the payments made during the same time, has the creditor under such circumstances received a preference which he is obliged to surrender before his claim shall be allowed under the bankrupt act?

“2. If each of such payments is a preference under the act is it to be set off under section 60c of the act by deducting subsequent sales therefrom, carrying forward to the next payment any excess of preferences, but not of sales, treating any excess of preferences as thus ascertained as a sum to be surrendered before the allowance of the creditor’s claim?”

The first question is answered in the negative on the authority of Jaquith v. Alden, 189 U. S. 78; and the second need not be answered.

Certified accordingly.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Wagner v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.
757 N.W.2d 194 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2008)
Bernstein v. Alpha Associates, Inc.
753 F.2d 230 (Second Circuit, 1985)
In Re Frigitemp Corporation
753 F.2d 230 (Second Circuit, 1985)
Pettigrew v. Trust Co. Bank (In Re Bishop)
17 B.R. 180 (N.D. Georgia, 1982)
In Re Fulghum Construction Corp.
14 B.R. 293 (M.D. Tennessee, 1981)
Cooper Petroleum Co. v. Hart
379 F.2d 777 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)
In Re Stewart
233 F. Supp. 89 (D. Oregon, 1964)
Engstrom v. Wiley
191 F.2d 684 (Ninth Circuit, 1951)
Campanella v. Liebowitz
103 F.2d 252 (Third Circuit, 1939)
Willcox v. Goess
92 F.2d 8 (Second Circuit, 1937)
In Re Fred Stern & Co.
54 F.2d 478 (Second Circuit, 1931)
Federal International Banking Co. v. Childs
54 F.2d 478 (Second Circuit, 1931)
In re Harry R. Phillips Co.
28 F.2d 299 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1928)
Talty v. Rosenthal
14 F.2d 239 (D. Massachusetts, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 U.S. 526, 24 S. Ct. 552, 48 L. Ed. 776, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yaple-v-dahl-millikan-grocery-co-scotus-1904.