Robinson v. Wangemann
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
75 F.2d 756 (1935)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
In 1922, Arthur Wangemann, the president of Wangemann-Reichardt Company (W-R Co.), sold 500 shares of W-R Co. stock back to W-R Co. Pursuant to a promissory note, Wangemann was to be paid $55,000 plus interest on or before January 1, 1923. At the time of the transaction, W-R Co. was solvent and had sufficient funds to pay Wangemann in cash without becoming insolvent. The note to Wangemann was not paid on its due date, however. Over time, renewal notes were issued and the amount owed to Wangemann was reduced. W-R Co. eventually changed its name to Reichardt-Abbott Company, Inc. (R-A Co.) and entered into bankruptcy proceedings. By that point, R-A Co. had insufficient assets to pay its creditors in full. Several notes to Wangemann, including a $30,000 note due in January 1933 and four notes covering interest payments, were still outstanding. Since Wangemann had passed away, his executrix (plaintiff) filed a claim in the bankruptcy court on behalf of Wangemann’s estate, requesting to participate in the distribution of R-A Co. assets equally with other creditors. The bankruptcy referee allowed the executrix’s claim on the grounds that the transaction between Wangemann and W-R Co. had been made in good faith and would have stood had Wangemann been timely paid. The referee’s order was affirmed; that decision was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Foster, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.