The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1926-07-26
From Ransom County

Dwight Joness as trustee Of the
estate of Isabella Flatters, bankrunt.
plaintiff and respondent, vs., Isaac An.
drew Flatters, defendant and appel
liant.
Syllabus: ~ In an action BY a
trustee in bankruptcy to set aside y
conveyance as preference within
section Goa Of the national bank
ruptcy act. the effect Of. the transfer.
not the intent Of tho debtor, is con-
trolling.
(2) Section Goa Of the national
bankruptcy act does rot require that
the preferred creditor should have
any actual knowledge on the subject
OF the debtors insolvency or the re-
suit OF the transaction in giving q
preference; nor even that he should
have any actual belief on the point
What the law requires is reasonable
cause to believe" and if this exists.
ut is enough without regard to the
actual state Of the creditors mind or
opinion.
t3) Whether the creditor had rca.
sonable cause to believe that the
transfer challenged would effect a
preference Is q question Of fact; and
the burden rests on the trustee to
establish this fact by q rreponder-
ance of the evidence.
CD The true test is what infer
ence would the ordinarily inteIli-
gent or prudent business man draw
from the facts. Notice of facts
which would incite q man Of or
binary prudence to an inquiry, un-
der similar circumstances, is notice
Of all the facts which reasonably
diligent inquiry would disclose.
Appeal from distric. court Of Ran.
som county, Hon. Goo. NJ. McKenna. J,
Affirmed. Opinion Of the court
by johnson, J.
Kelly & Morris. Darlington, North
Dakota. attorneys for plaintiff and
respondent.
Hopes & Lanier. Darlington,
North Dakota. attorneys for defend
and and appellant.
From- Grant Couaty
IT. First National Bank Of Lem.
{nOhs South Dakots, a corporation,
plaintiff and appellant. vs.. Wendelin
kopp. defendant and respondent.
i J. Syllabus: "a For reasons stated IN
the opinion t. 10 held that the verdict
tf the jury, TO the effect that the
plaintiff was the real principal in 4
land deal which constitutes the basis
ef defendsnt's counterclaim, has sub
stantial support ii the Testimony.
l2) When q land. contract Is right
fully reseinded by the purchaser, be
Is entitled to restoration Of the
purehase money. which he has paid.
t3 For. reasons; stated n 10 held
that the verdict on the counterclaim
10 not excessive.
~ Rnlings upon adhnissibility Of
evidence examined and, for reasons
stated, held proper.
II 90 Instructions examined and. for
reasons stated, held correct.
Appeal from the district court Of
grant county. Hon. F. +. Lembke,
Judge.
Affirmed. Opinion Of the court by
johnson, ].
Sullivan. Hanley & Sullivan. Man
dan, North Dakota, attorneys for
Plaintiff and appellant.
!acobsOn Z Murray, Mott, North
Dakota. attorneys for defendant and
respondent.
Ffo1 Eddy County
G: Evensen, Plaintiff and appellant,
vs.. 4. II. Halvorson. ct al, defendants
and respohdents.
merchandise and fixtures to the d.
rectors Of . corporation, for the COM
Epany, the directors giving their four
teen pr0missory notes, 20 cover the
purchase price, IN the sum Of ST.
k46.11, N sEal ssteement ttat, safter
the company Il roincoSpoYatod. from
10000 d61l{$n "a ii m nn6 1n1ia.. -.S9