Court Opinion

ID: 9639491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:20:13.936253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.372627
License: Public Domain

HICKS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot concur. There is no hard and fast definition of the word “fraud.” existence depends altogether upon circumstances. It should be considered here in its relation to tlle dealin„s between the holden The stockholder by virtue of its control iated the fees involved. The District Court held that "these charges were excessive and clearly unjustified.” 7 F.Supp. 511, 525. This finding had our approval in the original opinion. The stockholder profited by these payments at the expense of the railway and without any corresponding benefits to it. I think that equity requires that they should be restored to the assets of the railway from which they were taken, to be finally distributed ’ for the benefit of bondholders, who were the principal creditors. See *339Central Trust Co. v. Bridges, 57 F. 753, 766 (C.C.A.6).
I do not think the incidental date of insolvency affects the question.