Golden & Co. v. Loving
Golden & Co. v. Loving
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:'
Having examined the testimony, we find nothing to indicate error in the court’s finding. There was no error in refusing plaintiff’s prayer for a decree for the amount of money paid Golden & Company as a preference. Vacating the deed is sufficient relief. We find no error in the. denial of the application of Golden & Company to make it a condition of plaintiff’s relief that they should be admitted to participate as a creditor
Under certain conditions, which do not exist in this case, the relief might well have been granted with the condition as prayed for. See Page v. Rogers, 211 U. S. 575, 581, 53 L. ed. 332, 335, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159.
As the property is required to be reconveyed to the trustees, and the amount of the dividend may not now be ascertained, the court did not err. It did not deny the right of Golden & Company to prove their claim for the surrender of the preference. See Keppel v. Tiffin Sav. Bank, 197 U. S. 356, 373, 49 L. ed. 790, 796, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443.
The decree is affirmed, each party to pay his own costs on appeal. Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- GOLDEN & COMPANY v. LOVING LOVING v. GOLDEN & COMPANY
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Bankruptcy; Preference; Avoidance; Participation in Assets; Equity. 1. A conveyance of real estate within four months before bankruptcy, made by the bankrupt to a stockholder of a creditor company, who held the same for the company, and paid for it with money which was furnished by the company and received back by it from the bankrupt, is a voidable preference. 2. The purchase price of land conveyed by a bankrupt to a stockholder of a creditor company which furnished the money and received it back from the bankrupt cannot be recovered by the trustee in bankruptcy as a preference, when the conveyance itself is set aside as a preference. 3. An application of a preferred creditor to have the avoidance of the preference conditioned upon his admission to participate as a general creditor in the distribution of the assets to the full amount of the debt due at the date of performance,—held to have been properly denied by the court below, where the court did not deny the right of the preferred creditor to prove his claim for the surrender of the preference.