YAPLE
v.
DAHL-MILLIKAN GROCERY COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A creditor who made multiple sales on credit to an insolvent debtor and received payments on those sales during the four months before the debtor's bankruptcy adjudication was not required to surrender those payments as a preference under the Bankruptcy Act, even though the sales exceeded the payments received during that period. The Supreme Court held that such contemporaneous exchanges of credit and payment do not constitute preferences that must be surrendered before the creditor's claim is allowed in bankruptcy.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Nat'l City Bank of N.Y. v. Hotchkiss in Bankruptcy of Haskins, 231 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1913)
-
Joseph Wild & Co. v. Provident Life & Tr. Co., 214 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1909)…al payments. The majority of the court thought these facts distinguished the case from Pirie v. Trust Company, 182 U. S. 438, though there was a difference of opinion upon that point. But ali doubt was resolved in Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Co., 193 U. S. 526, where the precise question, which is now here, was decided by the court, and it was held, where a creditor has a claim upon an open account for goods sold and delivered during the period of four months before the adjudication in 'bankruptcy, the ac…
-
Engstrom v. Wiley, 191 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1951)…s Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Company Trustee, 229 U.S. 435, 444, 33 S.Ct. 829, 57 L.Ed. 1268. . Joseph Wild & Company v. Provident Life & Trust Company, Trustee, 214 U.S. 292, 297, 29 S.Ct. 619, 53 L.Ed. 1003; Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Co., 193 U.S. 526, 527, 24 S.Ct. 552, 48 L.Ed. 776; Jaquith v. Alden, 189 U.S. 78, 83, 23 S. Ct. 649, 47 L.Ed. 717. . Dean v. Davis, 242 U.S. 438, 443, 37 S.Ct. 130, 61 L.Ed. 419; “Preference implies preceding credit.” 4 Remington on Bankruptcy, 4th Ed., § 1694. .…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jaquith v. Alden, 189 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1903)