US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

VAN IDERSTINE V. NATIONAL DISCOUNT CO., 227 U. S. 575 (1913)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 227 U. S. 575

U.S. Supreme Court

Van Iderstine v. National Discount Co., 227 U.S. 575 (1913)

Van Iderstine v. National Discount Company

No. 136

Argued January 22, 23, 1913

Decided February 24, 1913

227 U.S. 575

Syllabus

A general verdict in an equity case to declare a payment to be fraudulent preference in favor of the trustee, which was only advisory, and which was practically demanded by the instructions of the court, cannot be treated as a finding of intent by the bankrupt to defraud, of which intent defendant had notice.

There is a difference between intent to defraud and intent to prefer -- the former is malum per se and the latter malum prohibitum, and only to the extent forbidden.

A bona fide transfer of securities to secure a loan made to one who immediately thereafter becomes a bankrupt is not an illegal preference where the person making the loan has no knowledge that the borrower intends to defraud any of his creditors, even though he may know that the whole or part of the money loaned is to be used to pay some of his debts.

Where error is assigned in the circuit court of appeals not only on refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict against, but also for failure to enter a verdict in favor of, defendant, the circuit court of appeals, if it finds facts justifying such action, may reverse and order the complaint dismissed.

171 F.5d 8 affirmed. chanrobles.com-red

Page 227 U. S. 576

The facts, which involve the determination of whether a payment by a bankrupt constituted an illegal preference, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 227 U. S. 579



























chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com