Court Opinion

ID: 8634648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:43:12.779871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:53.389082
License: Public Domain

THE COURT
charged the jury with great clearness, and very fully. Both parties expressed their satisfaction, and declined to ask special instructions. Without attempting to quote the charge, THE COURT said, in substance, that to make out the case it was necessary that insolvency and a preference must concur. A trader .unable to pay his debts in the ordinary course of business, is insolvent, prima facie, and it is incumbent on him to show that he is not so in fact. This rule does not apply with the same strictness to the farmer, and as to them this rule is reversed. The petitioner must take the onus of showing actual insolvency. The “preference” must be an advantage actually given to one or more of his creditors over the others, with the knowledge Of his situation and the intent to accomplish this end. The “intent” is an element of the objectionable transaction, according to the letter of the law, and though one is presumed to intend the natural results of his acts, the intent is essential, and must be shown by his acts and the circumstances. When the respondent sold the land to Tompkins, he believed at least that he was paying a debt of ten thousand dollars, and if he considered these lands of such comparatively insignificant value,’ it would be hard to believe, upon the estimate of the relative value of his assets and liabilities, that he intended or thought he was giving a preference to this creditor. The solution of the mortgage is much more difficult, not only on account of the difference of the sum, but also because it was merely a security for that sum, and did not relieve his estate of it by a settlement in full. The Keys & McCully transaction is a peculiar one, and is to be solved by the testimony which you have. No credit was given upon the books, but if, from the testimony, you are satisfied that the seven hundred dollars was paid by the respondent in full, by the re-delivery of the one thousand dollar note, then is not this more than he could pay to others, and to that extent a preference? If you'shall conclude that this note was re-delivered to meet the heavy advances of provisions and of fertilizers subsequently made, as well as the debt already contracted, then you may reach a different conclusion. These are questions which it is your peculiar province to solve. The insolvency and the intent to give preference must concur.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.