Case Name: In re RIDDLE'S SONS
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1903-03-25
Citations: 122 F. 559
Docket Number: No. 861
Parties: In re RIDDLE’S SONS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 122
Pages: 559–559

Head Matter:
In re RIDDLE’S SONS.
(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
March 25, 1903.)
No. 861.
1. Bankruptcy — Preference—Payment to Dowress.
The payment hy a partnership within four months prior to Its bankruptcy of a sum of money to the mother of the partners, on account of accrued interest on her statutory dower in real estate owned by the partners through descent from their father, but upon which the mother had a-lien for her dower and interest, cannot be assailed as a preference under, the bankruptcy law..
In Bankruptcy. On certificate from referee.
Hampton L. Carson and H. H. Bowman, for Eydia C. Riddle.
John Weaver, Frederick'S. Drake, and W. Roger Frónefield, for objecting creditors. . ' •

Opinion:
J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.
Upon the facts found by the referee — and the evidence certainly supports the finding — his conclusion properly follows. Mrs. Riddle had a lien for her statutory dower, principal and interest, upon certain real estate that descended to the bankrupts years ago from her husband and their father. The interest being largely in arrear, the bankrupts paid her $4,000 on this account within four months preceding the adjudication. The lien being unaffected by the bankrupt act, the payment was unassailable on the ground that it was a preference; and, if the money had been taken out of their individual funds, I think no further question would be likely to arise. None does arise now. But as the fund that is in course of distribution at present is the proceeds of personal property of the partnership, and as it seems to be true that the $4,000 was partnership money, it may perhaps be proper hereafter, when the real estate is sold upon which the lien rests, to inquire whether the land continued to be the individual property of the bankrupts, or had been converted into property of the partnership, and, in the former contingency, whether the partnership creditors are then entitled to be subrogated to a due proportion of the proceeds of sale. On this subject I intimate no opinion.
The report of the learned referee is approved.