Opinion ID: 379522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: Appellants contend that: 5 (1) The trial judge erred in holding that the cash withdrawals received by each appellant within the one year preceding the filing of a voluntary petition which were in excess of each appellants' cash deposits were transfers of property of the bankrupt within the meaning of section 67(d); 6 (2) the trial judge erred in holding that each customer of the bankrupt whose total cash withdrawals were less than such customers' total cash deposits was a creditor of the bankrupt within the meaning of section 67(d); and, 7 (3) the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence, over the objection of appellants, computer records which were not properly authenticated as business records, without which there was a complete absence of any evidence to show that the bankrupt was insolvent at the time the transfers were made.