Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Co.
193 U.S. 526 (1904)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Co., 193 U.S. 526 (1904)

Yaple v. Dahl-Millikan Grocery Company

No. 181

Submitted March 16, 1904

Decided April 4, 1904

193 U.S. 526

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Where a creditor has a claim for a balance due against an insolvent debtor afterwards adjudicated a bankrupt, upon an open account for goods sold and delivered four months before the adjudication in bankruptcy, and during said period makes a number of sales of merchandise on credit to the insolvent debtor, which becomes a part of the debtor's estate, and during the same period receives payments of sums on account, from time to time, which payments are received in good faith without knowledge of the debtor's insolvency on the part of the creditor, the sales exceeding in amount during said period the payments made during the same time, he has not received a preference which he is obliged to surrender before his claim shall be allowed. Jaquith v. Alden,189 U. S. 78.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Page 193 U. S. 527

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Two questions are propounded by this certificate, namely:

"1. Where a creditor has a claim for a balance due against an insolvent debtor afterwards adjudicated a bankrupt, upon an open account for goods sold and delivered four months before the adjudication in bankruptcy, and during said period makes a number of sales of merchandise on credit to the insolvent debtor, which becomes a part of the debtor's estate, and during the same period receives payments of sums on account, from time to time, which payments are received in good faith, without knowledge of the debtor's insolvency on the part of the creditor, the sales exceeding in amount during said period the payments made during the same time, has the creditor, under such circumstances, received a preference which he is obliged to surrender before his claim shall be allowed under the Bankrupt Act?"

"2. If each of such payments is a preference under the act, is it to be set off under section 60c of the act by deducting subsequent sales therefrom, carrying forward to the next payment any excess of preferences, but not of sales, treating any excess of preferences as thus ascertained as a sum to be surrendered before the allowance of the creditor's claim?"

The first question is answered in the negative on the authority of Jaquith v. Alden,189 U. S. 78, and the second need not be answered.

Certified accordingly.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.