STOWE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF HARVEY,
v.
HARVEY
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 bankrupt's trustee sought to set aside a transfer of stock from the bankrupt to his wife, claiming it was made in 1909 while the husband was insolvent with intent to defraud creditors, whereas the wife maintained the gift and transfer occurred in 1905 when her husband was solvent. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in favor of the wife, finding that the evidence supported the 1905 date of transfer and rejecting the trustee's alternative arguments that the gift was void due to the husband retaining apparent title or lack of proper change of possession.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mb. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
J. Downey Harvey of San Francisco was adjudged a-bankrupt November 17, 1911. Appellant having become trustee of the estate instituted this proceeding to set aside a transfer by the bankrupt to his wife — defendant in error — of certain stock in Shore Line Investment Company because made without consideration and with intent to delay and defraud his creditors. The complaint alleges that the gift was made and stock transferred in November, 1909, when it is admitted Harvey was insolvent. Mrs. Harvey maintains that her husband gave the stock and actually delivered the properly endorsed certificate to her in 1905, during all of which year his solvency is conceded. The substantial controversy throughout has been upon the question of fact thus raised.
Having heard witnesses, the trial court held the transfer was made in 1909 and rendered a decree in favor of the trustee. The Circuit Court of Appeals after a careful review of the evidence, reached a contrary conclusion. 219 Fed. Rep. 17. We are now asked to reverse its decree and sustain the trial court.
Notwithstanding doubts necessarily engendered by some conflicting statements and questionable circumstances, upon consideration of the whole record we think the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals is correct.
Appellant also suggests (a)-that the gift is void because Mrs. Harvey permitted her husband for more than four years to retain apparent title to the stock and hold himself out as its real owner; and (b) that there was no actual and continuous change of possession as required by the state statute against fraudulent conveyances. In reply to these suggestions it seems only necessary to cite National Bank v. Western Pacific Ry., 157 California, 573, 581, which announces as settled doctrine in California that title to stock may be transferred by delivery of certificates and corporate books, are not for public information.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (65 total)
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Fla. Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161 (Fla. 1927)…and we think they or the applicable portions thereof should have been admitted in evidence. We have found no .case directly in point on this question, but the following support this view: Georgia, F. & A. R. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Ward, 244 U. S. 383, 37 Sup. Ct. [*170] Rep. 617; Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U. S. 560, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 410; Davis v. Henderson, 266 U. S. 92, 45 Sup. Ct, Rep. 24. On the basis of the subject-matter of this opinio…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Ardenia Davis and Samuel C. Davis, 76 Fla. 344 (Fla. 1918)…escott, 240 U. S. 632, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469; Central Vermont R. Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 391; Georgia, F. & A. R. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541; G. H. & S. Ry. v. Wallace, 223 U. S. 481. Reversed for a new trial. Bowne,, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.…
-
Chase & Co. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 94 Fla. 922 (Fla. 1927)…S. 574, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Leatherwood, 250 U. S. 478, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep 517; Pere Marquette R. Co. v. J. F. French. & Co., 254 U. S. 538, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 195; Georgia, Fla. & Ala. Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541; American Fruit Growers, Inc. of Illinois v. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., 239 Ill. App. 151. The order of the Circuit Court for Orange County is, therefore, affirmed. Affirmed. Ellis, C. J., and Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J.. coneiir. Whi…
Previewing 3 of 65 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence