Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

National Bank of Athens v. Shackelford

Nat’l Bank of Athens v. Shackelford, 239 U.S. 81 (1915)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1915-11-15
Topic
general

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court. This controversy arose in a bankruptcy proceeding and was begun in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Appellant claims that it holds a valid lien on certain real estate in the city of Athens, formerly the property of the bankrupt, Webb, under a mortgage deed executed by him November 6,1911, *82 but not recorded until noon August 14, 1912, a few hours before the petition in involuntary bankruptcy was filed. Among other things, the trustee asserts that the mortgage is void as to creditors because fraudulently withheld from record.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed National Bank of Athens v. Shackelford. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
22 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Bankruptcy Law — Fraudulent Transfers A mortgage given for valuable consideration more than four months before the filing of a bankruptcy petition is fraudulent and void as to creditors where it was fraudulently withheld from record until the day the petition was filed. 239 U.S. 81 (syllabus)
  2. Bankruptcy Law — Fraudulent Transfers A mortgage that is valid as between the parties and given for a valid consideration may nevertheless be held void as against general creditors where it was withheld from record, by understanding if not agreement, so as not to affect the mortgagor's credit, because such withholding was for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding creditors. 239 U.S. at 82-83 (quoting 208 F. 677, 678)
  3. Civil Procedure — Review of Concurrent Fact Findings Where both courts below have concurred in finding as a matter of fact that a mortgage was void as to creditors because it was executed and withheld from record for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding creditors, such a finding will not be disturbed on review unless clearly shown to be erroneous. 239 U.S. at 83 (citing Washington Securities Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 76, 78; Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U.S. 1, 14)