Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8769674
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Farmers' Bank of Edgefield, S. C. v. C. D. Carr & Co.
No. 8769674 · Decided February 2, 1904
No. 8769674·Fourth Circuit · 1904·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided
February 2, 1904
Citation
No. 8769674
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
SIMONTON, Circuit Judge. We are thus confined to the single question whether this mortgage is valid as to the April and June notes. The essential principle of the bankrupt law is that all of the bankrupt’s property be divided equally, without preference, to the payment of his debts. It abhors preferences. But if bona fide an advance in prassenti be made to one who afterwards within four months becomes a bankrupt, that will be sustained, and a lien therefor held valid. And it has been held that if a debtor and creditor, both bona fide, believe that the *691 debtor is solvent, and neither have cause to believe otherwisé, a mortgage given when an actual advance is made securing as well the sum advanced as antecedent debts will be held valid, although four months thereafter the debtor be declared bankrupt. McNair v. McIntyre, 113 Fed. 113 , 51 C. C. A. 89 ; Pirie v. Trust Co., 182 U. S. 446 , 21 Sup. Ct. 906, 45 L. Ed. 1171 . But the fact that neither the debtor nor the creditor knew, or had reason to know, that the debtor was in failing circumstances or insolvent, must be made to appear clearly and without question. McNair v. McIntyre, supra. We have examined the testimony in this case in the record. It is impossible to escape the conclusion, after reading that testimony, that the bankrupts certainly knew their precarious condition as to insolvency; and that, if the president of the Edgefield Bank did not know it, he had every reason to do so if lie had used his opportunities, and that certainly other officers of the bank knew it. The bare fact that, before he would make the September loan, he required a mortgage of all the stock in trade of the bankrupts as security for the antecedent loans is strong proof of this. We see no error in the decree of the District Court. It is affirmed.
Plain English Summary
We are thus confined to the single question whether this mortgage is valid as to the April and June notes.
Key Points
01We are thus confined to the single question whether this mortgage is valid as to the April and June notes.
02The essential principle of the bankrupt law is that all of the bankrupt’s property be divided equally, without preference, to the payment of his debts.
03But if bona fide an advance in prassenti be made to one who afterwards within four months becomes a bankrupt, that will be sustained, and a lien therefor held valid.
04And it has been held that if a debtor and creditor, both bona fide, believe that the *691 debtor is solvent, and neither have cause to believe otherwisé, a mortgage given when an actual advance is made securing as well the sum advanced as a
Frequently Asked Questions
We are thus confined to the single question whether this mortgage is valid as to the April and June notes.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Farmers' Bank of Edgefield, S. C. v. C. D. Carr & Co. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 2, 1904.
Use the citation No. 8769674 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.