held that the transfer was not fraudulent under the bankrupt act in the above state of facts. He held that the transfer was only the execution of a contract made when there was no circumstance to impeach It as an intended fraud on the act, and when it was conceded the parties were acting in good faith, and long before the failure of Howell, Wood & Oo. had thrown a suspicion over the solvency of James P. Wood; that it was not necessary that the contract then made should have been in writing, nor was it necessary that the notes should have been transferred to entitle Willingham to them, or to make the contract binding on Wood. In delivering the notes after he became insolvent he was only doing what he was bound by his previous agreement to do, and in the absence of all actual or intentional fraud in such delivery, it was the completion of a contract valid in itself and made in good faith before the insolvency, and the bill was dismissed, the assignee taking an appeal.
In re Wood
30 F. Cas. 423
W.D. Tenn.1871Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.