The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-10-28
FOR A THIRD TIME
FINCH IS WINNER
OPINION OF SUPREME COURT
IN AN INTERESTING CASE.
Suit Over the Possession of Mine
Machinery That Has Been Active
ly Before Court for Three Years.
The Referee, the Court of First
Instance and the Supreme Court
Reach the Same Final Decision,
but by Different Routes-Justice
Deans Findings.

Prothonotary Copeland yesterday re-
ceived a copy of Justice Deans Opn-
ion in the case of the Finch Manu-
featuring company against the Stcr-
ling company, which was decided in
favor of the plaintiff at the recent ses-
sion of the Supreme court in Pitts
burg.
The case is peculiar from this fact.
that although the referees finding of
facts on the main question at issue
was reversed by the local court and
the local courts decision reversed by
the Supreme court, all three decisions
were alike in favor of the plaintiff.
Mr. Torrey, who was the referee, de-
cided that the Chamberlain company
was solvent and found for the Finch
company. Judge Archibald decided that
the company was insolvent, but that
the allegation of fraud was not sus-
tained and found in favor of the Finch
company. Justice Dean decides that
If the company was insolvent the al
legation of fraud was we'll founded, but
holds that the insolvency was not
proven and that the Finch company
therefore wins.
CAUSE OF THE SUIT.
This is a. suit over the possession of
two engines, boilers. connections and
pulleys that We're levied upon by the
sheriff as the property of the Cham
berlain coal company at the instance
Of the Sterling company. The Finch
Manufacturing company claimed the
property by purchase. The Chamber
, lain company owed the Finch COM
pany a book account of $4,000. The
Finch company offered to buy the ma
chnery for it's real value, $2,1OO, ana
credit it on the $4,000 account The
Chamberlain company accepted the Of
fer and later delivered the goods to
the Finch company in Scranton.
The Sterling company opposed this
claim with the allegation that |. a.
Finch, being president, director and
stockholder, of both the Chamberlain
and Finch companies the sale was ir-
regular, he being aware. it was claim
ed, that the Chamberlain company was
insolvent and by reason of this knowl-
edge took an advantage that was pre-
judicial to the other creditors.
In response to this Mr.. Finch averred
that the Chamberlain Coal company
was not insolvent at the time of the
sale and further that he did not vote
on the sale at the meeting of the
Chamberlain company's stockholders.
The case was referred to James H.
Torrey, as referee, and he found that
the coal company was not insolvent
at the date of the sale and that the
sale was not made in contemplation
of future insolvency. On exception.
however, the local court reversed the
refeOee at this point, but adopted his
general finding in favor of the Finch
company that while il was presump-
lively a fraudulent preference, the pre-
sumption is rebutted by the facts, that
the preference was in no way secured
by solicitation or by the influence of
Finch.
LOWER COURT REVERSED.
The supreme court now reverses the
local courts reversal of the referee.
Justice Dean holds that if the coal
company was insolvent, ,as the local court
declared, the sale could not have been
otherwise than void. as Finch, from
his prominence in the coal company,
presumably knew of it's insolvency,
and his refusal to vote on the sale
would not rebut the inference of fraud
ulelll preference.
In accepting the referees findings
as to the company's solvency at the
time of the sale, Justice Dean says:
"At the date of the transaction the
company had expended more than $3.50,
900 in Improvements; had really paid
in advance, royalties TO the amount
of $4,000: it had valuable leases, the
| organization was new and from the
very beginning the coal trade had been
| in such a state of depression that II
had conducted a losing business; il
had given an option for the purchase
of the entire plant at the price of $4S7,-
800. which did not expire until Janu-
| airy ! following; sale at this figure
would have paid all the debts and saw
| ed a very considerable Vaiue to the
| stock. Although hamncred by debts
| il did not follow that the company
! was insolvent. The referee has found
| as fact, on sufficient evidence, that
! the company was not insolvent at the
| date of the sale of this property, and
| that the sale was not made in con.
| temptation Of insolvency, it is not
! apparent TO us that the finding is man.
! ifestly wrong. The fact sustains tho
decree and it Is affirmed"
! Judge Archibald, upon receipt of tn.
decision, made an order directing the
sheriff to turn over to the Finch Manu-.
ufacturing company the Sl,20OOS thai
was derived from the sheriff's sale ot
the machinery.