CONTINENTAL TRUST CO. V. CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO, 229 U. S. 435 (1913)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 229 U. S. 435
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/229/435/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/229/435/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Continental Trust Co. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co, 229 U.S. 435 (1913)
Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings Bank
v. Chicago Title & Trust Company
No. 741
Argued January 6, 1913
Decided June 10, 1913
229 U.S. 435
Syllabus
To constitute a preferential transfer within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, there must be a parting with the bankrupts' property for the benefit of the creditor and a consequent diminution of the bankrupt's estate. Newport Bank v. Herkimer Bank, 225 U. S. 178.
In determining whether there has been a preferential payment, the
nature of the property transferred is not as essential as the facts showing exactly what transpired between the parties.
The arrangement involved in this action, made between a bank and a grain broker in regard to transfering certificate of deposit held as collateral for dealings in rain on the Chicago Board of Trade, do not appear to have in any way diminished the estate, and held not to have amounted to an illegal preference.
The purpose of § 68 of the Bankruptcy Act is to prevent debtors of the bankrupt from acquiring claims against him for use by way of setoff and reduction of their indebtedness by way of setoff; but the transaction in this case does not come under § 68a. Western Tie & Timber Co. v. Brown, 196 U. S. 502, distinguished.
The facts, which involve the construction of certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 relating to preferential payments, are stated in the opinion.