This action by the trustee to recover funds formerly belonging
to the bankrupt corporation, not being a suit to avoid a transfer
by the bankrupt of its property, but a suit against wrongdoers who
had appropriated the bankrupt's property without its assent, is not
one within §§ 23b and 70e of the Bankruptcy Act, and the district
court properly dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction.
The facts, which involve the right of a trustee in bankruptcy to
recover funds formerly belonging to the bankrupt, are stated in the
opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover funds
formerly belonging to the bankrupt. The district court dismissed
the bill for want of jurisdiction. The defendants in error admit
that the court had jurisdiction of a suit by the trustee to recover
property fraudulently transferred by the bankrupt, §§ 23b, 70e, but
deny that this is such a suit. The plaintiff says that it is, so
that our decision must rest upon an analysis of the bill. The
trouble with it is that the cause of action is not very steadily
conceived;
Page 237 U. S. 617
but in view of what seem to us the dominant allegations, we are
of opinion that the decree was right.
If we stopped with the opening averment, it is uncompromising:
that the bankrupt transferred to the defendants, for the purpose of
defrauding its creditors, $8,250 in cash. The declaration goes on
to tell that the defendants, being largely interested in the
bankrupt corporation, bought 275 shares of one Altgeld to prevent
the depreciation of the stock on the market; that they sold them to
Harris, but had trouble about collecting the price (two notes for
$4,125 each, secured by the stock), Harris discovering that he had
been overreached; that thereafter the defendants, being directors,
conspired with one Kirksey, the general manager, and induced him to
make a pretended purchase of the stock, but really for the
corporation, and to use in payment for the same $8,250 of the
corporation's funds; that the corporation had no funds with which
to purchase its own stock, but was heavily involved, and that the
sale was void; that the purchase was a pretense to purchase the
stock from the defendants, and that $4,125 of the corporation's
funds were received by each of them. Then it is alleged that the
defendants knew, or ought to have known, that the corporation was
not indebted to Kirksey, that it was insolvent, and "that the stock
so pretended to be sold by them, either to the said Kirksey, or to
the said corporation, was of no value," and that the money received
was the property of the bankrupt. So far, it might seem that the
declaration sustained the plaintiff's contention. But it continues
that the corporation did not authorize the foregoing transactions
or ratify them, and that the defendants knew it, and "that, to
conceal said misapplication of funds," the defendants caused
entries to be made on the corporation's books, making the
transaction appear to be a purchase of the stock by Kirksey,
contrary to the facts, "and the defendants knew said S. F. Kirksey,
Jr., was not to repay said funds to said corporation,"
Page 237 U. S. 618
and the liability was not intended to be a
bona fide
one, and afterwards, pursuant to the conspiracy, was cancelled and
retired. The other allegations are not material to the question
before us. Those that we have recited seem to us in their
conclusion to import not that the corporation has done anything,
but that certain of its officers, by false pretenses, have
withdrawn its funds. If so, the suit is not to avoid a transfer by
the bankrupt of its property, but a suit against wrongdoers, who
have appropriated it without the bankrupt's assent, and therefore
not within §§ 23b and 70e of the Act.
Judgment affirmed.