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.
J. W. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. Edwin A. ROGERS, Trustee of A. H. Henderson, Bankrupt, Appellee, 1924 — 1 F.2d 1022 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
J. W. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. Edwin A. ROGERS, Trustee of A. H. Henderson, Bankrupt, Appellee
1 F.2d 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1924
Before WALKER,, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
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
J. W. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. Edwin A. ROGERS, Trustee of A. H. Henderson, Bankrupt, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 11, 1924.)
No. 4334.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia; William H. Barrett, Judge.
E. K. Wilcox, of Valdosta, Ga. (R. D. Smith, of Tifton, Ga., and E. K. Wilcox, of Valdosta, Ga., on the brief), for appellant.- Orville A. Park,, of Macon, Ga. (Jones, Park & Johnston, of Macon, Ga., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WALKER,, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — WALKER, Circuit Judge.]
WALKER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree sustaining an attack by a trustee in bankruptcy on transfers of property made by the bankrupt, when he was insolvent, to his father’, the appellant, a little more than four months prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, on the ground that such transfers were made and accepted with intention to delay or defraud the bankrupt’s creditors. The court’s finding and decree were in accordance with a master’s report, exceptions to which were overruled. The decree is complained of on the ground that the transfers were not shown by evidence adduced to be fraudulent and void as against creditors. We are not of opinion that the evidence was such as to require the conclusion that the transfers in question were valid as against the bankrupt’s creditors. We do not think that- the record would justify us m setting aside the conclusions successively reached by the master and the court. The decree is affirmed.