Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 F.2d 903

Docket No. 5420.

Motor Mart Co. v. Hull

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 7, 1930.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1930-04-07

Cited by 3 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1947

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1930-04-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*904C. B. Zimmerman, of Springfield, Ohio (Zimmerman, Zimmerman & Zimmerman, of Springfield, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.

¶2A. J. Todd, of Springfield, Ohio (M. E. Spencer, of Springfield, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before DENISON, Circuit judge, and COCHRAN and JONES, District Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This was a bill by a bankruptcy trustee, to recover a preferential payment. Defendant denied having had any reason to believe that its debtor was insolvent. That was the only issue. The burden was on the plaintiff. We can find no substantial proof supporting his allegation as to defendant’s knowledge or reason to beliéve; there is suspicion, not proof.

¶6There is proof tending to show, though not making clear, that the liability had been originally fraudulently imposed upon the (later) bankrupt, but on that subject there was no issue; the validity and good faith of the debt were not challenged in the pleadings. The prayer for general relief cannot take the place of an omitted statement of a cause of action.

¶7The judgment must be reversed, and the bill dismissed.

/39/f2d/903 · .json · Public domain