Case Name: W. L. Mersfelder, Tr. v. Peters Cartridge Co.
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1910-04-09
Citations: 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 187
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. L. Mersfelder, Tr. v. Peters Cartridge Co.
Judges: Giffen, Smith, and Swing, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 22
Pages: 187–187

Head Matter:
BANKRUPTCY — PAYMENTS.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
April 9, 1910.]
Giffen, Smith, and Swing, JJ.
W. L. Mersfelder, Tr. v. Peters Cartridge Co.
Payments by Debtor to Bankrupt after Piling of Petition, are Valid.
Bona fide payments made by a debtor to a bankrupt after petition in bankruptcy filed but before adjudication thereon, payments made for services rendered after the filing the petition, and payments made subsequent to the adjudication if based upon an uncompleted contract for personal services involving the exercise of skill upon which reliance was had, are not recoverable by the trustee in bankruptcy from the debtors by whom such payments were made.
Error to Hamilton common pleas court.
Kelley & Hauck, for plaintiff in error.
Morse, Tuttle & Harper, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
GIFFEN, P. J.
The first payment made by defendant in error to Anton Mill, a bankrupt, and which the trustee in bankruptcy seeks to recover, was made the day after the petition in bankruptcy was filed, and long before adjudication. The payment having been made in good faith, the trustee in bankruptcy under the law of 1898 cannot recover it from the defendant in error, the debtor.
The second payment, made subsequent to adjudication, was for services rendered after the petition in bankruptcy was filed, and hence not the proceeds of property transferable or seizable at the time of filing, and did not vest in the trustee.
The third, payment, although made after adjudication, was based upon an uncompleted contract for personal service, involving the exercise of skill, upon which reliance was had. Such contract did not pass to the trustee. 1 Remington, Bankruptcy Sees. 994, 1132 and 1134.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.