18 Colo. App. 253 | Colo. Ct. App. | 1902
Tbe evidence discloses the following state of facts. On December 13, 1898, Walter H. Acres, Aus
It seems clear to us from the facts presénted that the attempted transfer of the property to the corporation was without consideration and voluntary, and the commission company being at the time clearly insolvent, was a fraud upon its creditor's. This being the ease, the appellant creditor had a right to treat the pretended transfer as a nullity, and to proceed against the property as he did by attachment. It is not pretended that there was any consideration for the transfer, moving from the corporation. Mr. Ady knew at the time that the firm was insolvent and
Ho question as to the right of an insolvent debtor to prefer a creditor is involved. The transfer by the debtor firm was not to Mr. Ady. The corporation to whom the transfer was made was not a creditor. Besides if it be conceded that the giving of the draft for $1,000 by the firm to Mr. Ady was intended bona fide as payment of the firm’s indebtedness to him, and was so received, then it must be held that thereupon Mr. Ady immediately ceased to be a creditor, and that in subsequently buying from the firm a one-half interest in the corporation, he was not dealing with it as a creditor, and had full knowledge of appellant’s rights. It is, however, with the dealings between the corporation and the commission firm that we are specially concerned and upon which this appeal depends, and not with the transactions between the firm and Mr. Ady. Giving due consideration to. all of the facts and circumstances shown by .the evidence,, we think there can be no other reasonable conclusion than that the transfer to the corporation was a fraud upon the appellant and other creditors if any existed. Fraud is a conclusion of law from the facts stated, and it may be committed in, or arise from the transfer of a debtor’s property to a corporation as well as by the transfer to an individual. We cite a few authorities in support of the views above expressed. — Robinson v. Canal Co., 2 Colo. App. 26; Knapp v. Day, 4 Colo. App.
The judgment will be reversed.
Reversed.