The bill presents a case within the provisions of the first clause of the thirty-fifth section of the bankrupt act. That clause was intended to defeat preferences to a creditor, made by a debtor when insolvent or in contemplation of insolvency. It declares that any payment or transfer of his property made by him whilst in that condition, within four months previous to the filing of his petition, with a view to give a preference to a creditor, shall be void if the creditor has at the time reasonable cause to believe him to be insolvent, and that the payment or transfer was made in fraud of the provisions of the bankrupt act. And it authorizes in such case the assignee to recover the property or its value from the party who receives it.
Under this act it is incumbent on the complainant, in order to maintain the decree in his favor, to show four things:
1st. That at the time the conveyances to Toof, Phillips & Co. and Mahan were made the bankrupts were insolvent or contemplated insolvency;
2d. That the conveyances were made with a view to give a preference to these creditors;
3d. That the creditors had reasonable cause to believe the bankrupts were insolvent at the time; and, 4th. That the conveyances were made in fraud of the provisions of the bankrupt act.
1st. The counsel of the appellants have presented an elaborate argument to show that inability to pay one's debts at the time they fall due, in money, does not constitute insolvency, within the provisions of the bankrupt act. The argument is especially addressed to language used by the district judge when speaking of the statement of the appellants in answer to one of the interrogatories of the bill, to the effect that at the time the transfers were made they did not believe the bankrupts were able to pay their debts in money, but were able to do so on a fair market valuation of their property and assets. The district judge held that this was a direct confession of a fact which in law constitutes insolvency, and observed that 'if the bankrupts could not pay their debts in the ordinary course of business, that is, in money, as they fell due, they were insolvent.'
The rule thus laid down may not be strictly correct as applied to all bankrupts. The term insolvency is not always used in the same sense. It is sometimes used to denote the insufficiency of the entire property and assets of an individual to pay his debts. This is its general and popular meaning. But it is also used in a more restricted sense, to express the inability of a party to pay his debts, as they become due in the ordinary course of business. It is in this latter sense that the term is used when traders and merchants are said to be insolvent, and as applied to them it is the sense intended by the act of Congress. It was of the bankrupts as traders that the district judge was speaking when he used the language which is the subject of criticism by counsel.
With reference to other persons not engaged in trade or commerce the term may perhaps have a less restricted meaning. The bankrupt act does not define what shall constitute insolvency, or the evidence of insolvency, in every case.
In the present case the bankrupts were insolvent in both senses of the term at the time the conveyances in controversy were made. They did not then possess sufficient property, even upon their own estimation of its value as given in their schedules, to pay their debts. These exceeded the estimated value of the property by over twenty thousand dollars. And for months previous the bankrupts had failed to meet their obligations as they matured. Creditors had pressed for payment without success; their stock of goods had been levied on, and their store closed by the sheriff under an execution on a judgment against one of them. It would serve no useful purpose to state in detail the evidence contained in the record which relates to their condition. It is enough to say that it abundantly establishes their hopeless insolvency.