Gamble v. Elkin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 285, Jan. T., 1902, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 4127, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Robert G. Gamble, Trustee of Hugh B. McKean, a Bankrupt, v. Mark Elkin etal., trading as Elkin & Company. Assumpsit by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover the amount of an alleged preference. The record disclosed a statement of claim and two amended statements of claim.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 285, Jan. T., 1902, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 4127, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Robert G. Gamble, Trustee of Hugh B. McKean, a Bankrupt, v. Mark Elkin etal., trading as Elkin & Company. Assumpsit by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover the amount of an alleged preference. The record disclosed a statement of claim and two amended statements of claim. Five affidavits of defense were filed to the various statements of claim. The statements of claim in substance set out that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Potteb,
Recovery is sought in this case upon the ground, as set forth in the statement of claim, that the defendants obtained from Hugh B. McKean a preferential transfer of certain assets, within four months of the time of the filing of a petition in bankruptcy against the said McKean.
Under the national bankruptcy law, such a preference is voidable by the trustee in bankruptcy if the person receiving it, or to be benefited thereby, or his agent acting therein, shall have had reasonable cause to believe that it was intended thereby to give a preference.
The plaintiff’s…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sherman v. LuckhardtSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
- Hertzler v. NisslySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928