HARRELL
v.
BEALL, ASSIGNEE
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree finding that a sale to Echols constituted fraud, holding that the appellee either knew of the fraud or intentionally avoided knowledge by failing to inquire despite having notice and information that should have prompted further investigation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justiee MILLER delivered the opinion of the court*
The appellant has furnished a brief and an oral argument which-have received the attentive consideration of the court. There is no appearance here for the appellee, and this has made us more careful in the examination of the record.
The question is wholly one of-the weight of evidence, involving no controverted proposition of law; and the pressure of business on this court will not justify u§ in reproducing in -our opinion the facts on which our judgments rest in such cases. It must suffice to say that we are-convinced that the sale to Echols was a barefaced fraud, and that if the appellee did -not know it when he purchased ofEchols it was because he intentionally shut his eyes to the truth, and that he had such notice and information as made it his duty to iüquiré further, and that the slightest effort by him in that direction would have discovered the whole fraud.
Such were the views on which the decree below was fqunded,-and it is accordingly
Affirmed.
Dissenting, Mr. Justice DAYIS.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sampsell in Bankruptcy v. Imperial Paper & Color Corp., 313 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1941)…7,500. The corporation apparently had paid $5,000 on that.obligation. Shortly after the adjudication the receiver, pursuant to a stipulation, took possession of the property of the corporation. See Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 299; Harrell v. Beall, 17 Wall. 590. That the same result follows in absence of the saving clause, see Astor v. Wells, 4 Wheat. 466, interpreting L. Ohio, 1809-10, ch. LVII, §2. And see 1 Glenn, Fraudulent Conveyances and Preferences (1940) § 237. All question of the rights of credit…
-
Union Stock Yards Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1890)
-
In re Agric. Research & Tech. Grp., Inc. v. Palm Seedlings Partners-A, 916 F.2d 528 (9th Cir. 1990)…nded to delay or defraud his creditors ... should be deemed to have notice ... as would invalidate the sale as to him. Shauer v. Alterton, 151 U.S. 607, 621, 14 S.Ct. 442, 446, 38 L.Ed. 286 (1894). See also Harrell v. Beall, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 590, 21 L.Ed. 692 (1873). These pronouncements indicate that courts look to what the [*536] transferee objectively “knew or should have known” in questions of good faith, rather than examining what the transferee actually knew from a subjective standpoint. Therefore,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence