21 F. Cas. 689 | S.D.N.Y. | 1867
The debt- or, having denied the acts of bankruptcy set forth in the petition, evidence has been taken orally before the court, on the part of the petitioners and the debtor. The only act of bankruptcy set forth in the petition, which it is important to consider, is that arising out of the judgment obtained by Raphael I. Cow-en against the debtor, on the 16th of February. 1867, for $2,005.51, in the supreme court of New York, for the city and county of New York. On that judgment an execution was issued, soon after the judgment was recovered, but it was almost immediately countermanded by Cowen, and nothing further was done in regard to the judgment until the 18th of October, 1867, when a second execution was issued upon it to the sheriff of the city and county of New York, under which
I am satisfied, from the evidence, that the debtor was insolvent when the execution was issued, on the 18th of October, 18G7, on the judgment recovered by Cowen, and when the property of the debtor was taken by the sheriff on such execution. All. the minor conditions required by the provisions cited exist' in regard to the debtor. The only disputed question is as to the bona tides of the judgment. In regard to that, I am compelled to come to the conclusion, that the judgment was wholly fictitious, and was a device set on foot by the debtor to enable him to coerce creditors of his, who were pressing him at the time, to make favorable arrangements with him and give him time, and that he did not owe Cowen anything at the time the judgment was recovered. Although the debt- or and Cowen both of them swear to the bona tides of the debt to Cowen, and of the judgment, yet it is proved, by four separate and credible witnesses, that, on as many different occasions, the debtor declared to each of them, in substance, that the judgment was a fiction, and was procured to protect his property, and that he owed Cowen nothing. The debtor, although examined as a witness, did not deny having so stated to them, nor did he attempt to give any explanation in regard to such statements. Moreover, there are many surrounding and collateral circumstances In the evidence pointing in the same direction. Although the bankruptcy act had not been passed when the judgment was recovered, yet it was in force when the property of the debtor was taken on the execution, and the inaction or non-action of the debtor, in taking no steps to set aside the fictitious judgment, and prevent a second execution from being issued on it, must be held to have been, under the circumstances, a procuring or suffering by him of his property to be taken on legal process. The consequence of the taking of such property on the execution must be held to involve a probable defeat or delay of the operation of the bankruptcy act, and the debtor must be held to have intended such consequence, by procuring or suffering his property to be so taken. I think, also, that the transaction was, in substance and effect, within the provisions of section thirty-nine, a transfer of the property of the debtor, made by him, and so made with intent to delay, hinder and defraud his creditors.
It follows, that the debtor must be adjudged a bankrupt. This proceeding, however, is, so far, one merely between the petitioning creditors and the debtor. Oowen is no party to it, although examined as a witness for the debtor; and, in the further progress of the matter, if the assignee of the debtor, to be appointed, should institute proceedings to realize, for the benefit of the.debtor’s estate in bankruptcy, the property levied on by the sheriff under the execution, Cowen will have a full opportunity to assert his rights, and maintain, if he can, the integrity of the judgment; and there is nothing in this adjudication to preclude him from doing so.