Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In re PAPER CITY MILL SUPPLY CO., Inc. Claim of E. J. KELLER CO. et al., 1928 — 28 F.2d 115 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
In re PAPER CITY MILL SUPPLY CO., Inc. Claim of E. J. KELLER CO. et al.
28 F.2d 115·United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts·1928
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re PAPER CITY MILL SUPPLY CO., Inc. Claim of E. J. KELLER CO. et al.
District Court, D. Massachusetts.
July 17, 1928.
No. 38460.
John P. Dowling, of Holyoke, Mass., for creditor.
Nathan J. Saltzman, of Springfield, Mass., for trustee.
[MAJORITY — MORTON, District Judge.]
MORTON, District Judge.
It is conceded that the bankrupt was insolvent, and the evidence makes clear that it was deeply insolvent, at the times when the goods in question were bought. As persons in charge of a business are presumed to he aware of its financial condition, in a general way, at least, and to intend the necessary consequences of their acts, purchases on credit under such conditions are presumptively fraudulent. This inference may be overcome by evidence which shows that the transactions in question were entered into in good faith by the buyers, .with a real, though illusory, expectation of making payment. In re Siegal Co. (D. C.) 223 F. 368; In re Gurvitz (D. C.) 276 F. 931; In re Morrill-Mascot Co. (D. C.) 286 F. 449.
In the present case the learned referee was satisfied by the evidence that Goldberg and Belsky, who were in charge of the bankrupt’s affairs, acted in good faith. Upon such a question the conclusion of the judge, who sees the witnesses and is in the atmosphere of the case; carries great weight. I am not convinced that his decision was clearly wrong, and his orders must be affirmed. I should have reached the same result, perhaps with rather less hesitation, if he had decided the other way.
Orders affirmed.