Harmon v. Feldheim

131 Mich. 470 | Mich. | 1902

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Section 60 of the bankrupt act (subdivisions a and 6) reads as follows:

“(cf) A person shall be deemed to have given a preference if, being insolvent, he has procured or suffered a judgment to be entered against himself in favor of any person, or made a transfer of any of his property, and the effect of the enforcement of such judgment or transfer will be to enable any one of his creditors to obtain a greater percentage of his debt than any other of such creditors of the same class.

“(b) If a bankrupt shall have given a preference within four months before the filing of a petition, or after the filing of the petition and before the adjudication, and the person receiving it, or to be benefited thereby, or his agent acting therein, shall have had reasonable cause to believe that it was intended thereby to give a preference, it shall be voidable by the trustee, and he may recover the property or its value from such person.” 30 U. S. Stat. p. 562.

The sole question presented is: Did Mr. Feldheim and his attorney, Mr. Butzel, acting for him, have reasonable cause to believe that Ives & Sons were insolvent, and made the assignment with intent thereby to give a preference ? The court below, in a written opinion, found that they did not. In this finding we concur. We deem it unimportant to set forth the evidence upon which the finding is based. It would not form a precedent of any value to the profession. We are satisfied that Ives & Sons did not at the time of the assignment contemplate bankruptcy, and that both defendants had no information which led them to believe, or which should have caused them to believe, that the firm was insolvent. All the suspicious features of the contract are fully explained by the testimony.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred.