The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 1850-1873, 1871-06-02
.. IN 0ANKRUPTCY
.t,l- fe[ b.
An Important Decision by United
states. District Judge Trigg.

The following decision has been
rendered by Hon. CoNNALLY F.
TRIaa, Judge of the United States
District Court, at Nashville, a few
days ago, in a case which has excited
q good deal of interest in Giles County,
and which involves several impor.
tant points connected with the bank
ruptcy act: .....
D. II. Parsons, Assignee of J. T. Moi
l.. felt, VS.. r. B. Cox. ~
In this case it appears from the evil
dence that in September, 1859, J. F.
Mofett was engaged in business at
Pulaski, Tennessee, As q merchant,
having Q stock or merchandise worth
some 5000 or 5000. r. B. Cox, the
defendant, was his clerk and brother
in-law, and at that time Moffett owed
the latter nearly years salary as
clerk (some 81 ,375) besides other con-
siderable amounts. Mofett also owed
at the time ten or twelve thousand
dollars, to other creditors, principally
merchants of Cincinnati. 1t appears
in proof that Cox knew of the exis-
tense of this Indebtedness, or of the
greater part of it; that he was Moffett's
principal clerk; that he had. to a con-
siderable extent, charge of the bust
ness, AMI had written letters, in the
name of MOfett, to number of the
creditors, making excuses for not pay
ing their debts.
1t was also in evidence that Moffett
had an interest in a tract of land in
Obion County, Tennessee, estimated
to be of considerable value, although
the interest was undivided, and proba-
bly, somewhat involved in litigation;
and from the testimony of the witness
es, both Moffett and Cox appeared to
h We borne excellent characters in the
community where they resided.
In September, 1869, Moffett was
sued in the Federal Court at Nashville
for some 5000, and the evidence
shows that Cox knew of this suit, and
that judgment would soon be taken
upon it.
Under these circumstances, on the
18th OfSeptember, 1869, MOffett sold
his stock of merchandise to Cox for
Sc, 900, only $1,000 of which is claimed
to have been paid in cash, the balance
being absorbed or paid for in debts
claimed by Cox against Moffett. The
sale was also made in a bulk, and
without taking time to make out an
inventory or taking an account of
stock.
A short time after the sale was made
Moffett was declared bankrupt by
this court, upon the petition of Lock-
ard & Ireland, of Cincinnati, in behalf
of the creditors. d. H. Parsons, the
complainant, was appointed assignee
of his estate, and now the assignee
brings this actisn at the instance of
the creditors, to set aside the sale to
Cox as void under the bankrupt act,
and he also claims that Cox shall not
be allowed to prove his debts.
Upon this state of facts the court
makes the following decision:
First, That at the time of the sale
Moffett was insolvent, as contemplate
ed by the bankrupt act; that is, he
was not able to pay his debts in the
ordinary course of business as mer-
chants usually do. ..' .-
Second, r. b. Cox, the defendant,
had reasonable cause to believe that
lIOflett was 1nSOlVent, and, therefore,
it was violation of the act to make
the purchase under such circumstances.
It is probable that Cox did not appre-
bend the provisions of the law as they
applied to this case, but all citizens are
charged with knowledge of the law;
and ignorance of the law cannot be
taken as an excuse for its violation,
although the rule may work individu-
al hardships in some cases.
Third, Under the provisions of the
law Cox will not be allowed to prove
his debts against the estate Of Moffett,
or to receive a dividend, and the
amount realized from the goods pur-
chased by Cox will be assets in the
hands of the assignee to be distributed
among the creditors, who have proved
debts to which there are no legal ex'
ceptions. G. T. TRIGG, Judge.