Supreme Court of the United States
Michaels v. Post, Assignee
December 21, 187488 U.S. 398
Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s decree ordering the respondents to pay the sum claimed by the assignee and to be barred from any share of the bankrupts’ estate, holding that the bankruptcy proceeding was regular, the district court had jurisdiction, the sale of the stock within four months was a prohibited preference, and the assignee was entitled to recover the property.
Holding
- Did the district court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the bankruptcy petition filed by the creditor?. Yes, the district court had jurisdiction and its decree is conclusive.
- Was the bankruptcy decree void because it was allegedly procured by fraud or collusion?. No, the decree was not void; the proceedings were regular and not procured by fraud.
- Did the sale of the bankrupts' stock within four months of the petition constitute a prohibited preference under the Bankrupt Act?. Yes, the sale was a prohibited preference and fraudulent conveyance.
- Is the assignee entitled to recover the transferred property and to bar the respondents from any share of the estate?. Yes, the assignee may recover the property and the respondents are debarred from any claim on the estate.
Docket 85
Cited by
- Henry Fistel v. Car and General Insurance Corporation, Limited, & another
- Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Washburn
- In re McKEE
- Mary E. Smith v. Addison T. Hall
- Dvoinik v. Republic of Austria
- Jackman v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.
- Ed Kendall v. Silver King of Arizona Mining Company, a Corporation, and Silver King Mines, Inc., a Corporation
- Gay, Hardie & Co. v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co. — Stone, J., concurring