Case Name: Ben A. Matthews, trustee in bankruptcy, &c., complainant-respondent, v. Bessie Pope and James E. Pope, defendants-appellants
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1924-01-25
Citations: 95 N.J. Eq. 695
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ben A. Matthews, trustee in bankruptcy, &c., complainant-respondent, v. Bessie Pope and James E. Pope, defendants-appellants.
Judges: For affirmance—The Chibe-Justice,, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn,- Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Heppenheimer, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk, Clark —13.
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 695–696

Head Matter:
Ben A. Matthews, trustee in bankruptcy, &c., complainant-respondent, v. Bessie Pope and James E. Pope, defendants-appellants.
[Argued November 26th, 1923
Decided January 25th, 1924.]
On appeal from tbe decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Backes, whose opinion is reported in 95 N. J. Fq. 76j 1 N. J. Adv. R. 1182.
Mr. Robert II. McCarter (Mr. Charles L. Garrick and Mr. Benjamin F. Fdsall, on the brief), for the appellants.
Mr. Harvey T. Mann (of the New York bar), Mr. Benjamin W. Weinberg (on the brief), for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The facts are stated with substantial correctness in the opinion filed by the learned vice-chancellor, and the evidence amply supports his conclusion that the deed sought tc be set aside was invalid as in fraud of creditors. The resultant decree that the defendant Bessie Pope in equity holds title as grantor thereunder in trust, for the complainant, and directing a conveyance and account of rents, &c., was therefore correct, and will be affirmed.
We have not found it necessary to consider the point suggested in the opinion, that Mrs. Pope in her capacity as principal stockholder of both companies was chargeable in law with notice of their insolvency, for the evidence is plenary that she had actual notice thereof, or of such facts as would necessarily lead to knowledge of that condition.
Certain details in the recital of facts by the vice-chancellor were criticised in the brief end argument, but they are not of sufficient consequence to require comment, for, if incorrect, the result would in no way be affected.
The decree will-be affirmed.
For affirmance—The Chibe-Justice,, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn,- Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Heppenheimer, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk, Clark —13.
For reversal—None.