green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 10×
27.8 score
“but a willful and malicious injury does not follow as of course from every act of conversion, without reference to the circumstances. there may be a conversion which is innocent or technical, an unauthorized assumption of dominion without willfulness or malice.”
Treatment trajectory · 1935 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1935
1980
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Tinkler (In Re Tinkler)
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
willful and malicious injury does not follow as of course from every act of conversion, without reference to the circumstances.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Phillip v. Reecher (In re Reecher)
a wilful and malicious injury does not follow as of course from every act of conversion ... there may be a conversion which is innocent or technical, an unauthorized assumption of dominion
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dealer Services Corp. v. Erb (In Re Erb)
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
the trust receipt may state that the debtor holds the car as the property of the creditor; in truth, it is his own property, subject to a lien.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gulati v. McClendon (In Re McClendon)
but a willful and malicious injury does not follow as of course from every act of conversion, without reference to the circumstances. there may be a conversion which is innocent or technical, an unauthorized assumption of dominion without willfulness or malice.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dominion Virginia Power v. Robinson (In Re Robinson)
there may be a conversion which is innocent or technical, an unauthorized assumption of dominion without willfulness or malice.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Greater Illinois Title Co. v. Terranova (In Re Terranova)
a wilful and malicious injury does not follow as of course from every act of conversion, without reference to the circumstances. there may be a conversion which is innocent or technical.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kitchen v. Boyd (In Re Newpower)
it is not enough that, by the very act of wrongdoing out of which the contested debt arose, the bankrupt has become chargeable as a trustee ex maleficio. he must have been a trustee before the wrong and without reference thereto.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
AVCO Financial Services of Billings v. Kidd (In Re Kidd)
a wilful and malicious injury does not follow as of course from every act of conversion, without reference to the circumstances. there may be a conversion which is innocent or technical, an unauthorized assumption of dominion without wilfulness or malice.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
N.P. Deoudes, Inc. v. Snyder (In Re Snyder)
it is not enough that, by the very act of wrongdoing out of which the contested debt arose, the bankrupt has become chargeable as a trastee ex maleficio. he must have been a trustee before the wrong and without reference thereto.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arvest Mortgage Company v. Elizabeth Nail
In addition, the debtor “must have been a trustee before the wrong and without reference thereto.” Hunter v. Philpott, 373 F.3d 873 , 877 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 55 S.Ct. 151, 153 (1934))(quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crowe v. Moran (In Re Moran)
In the words of Blatchford, L, 'The language would seem to apply only to a debt created by a person who was already a fiduciary when the debt was created.’ ” Aetna Acceptance, 55 S.Ct. at 154 (internal citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arrow Concrete Co. v. Bleam
He must have been a trustee before the wrong and without reference to the wrong.” Davis, at 333, 55 S.Ct. 151 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Bleam
He must have been a trustee before the wrong and without reference to the wrong." Davis, at 333, 55 S.Ct. 151 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Denton v. Hyman (In Re Hyman)
Regarding conversion, Justice Cardozo, formerly Chief Judge of New York, stated in Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934) that a discharge in bankruptcy “will prevail as against a showing of conversion without aggravated features” and explained that “[t]here may be a conversion which is innocent or technical, an unauthorized assumption of dominion without wilfulness or malice.” Id at 332, 55 S.Ct. 151 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stone Street Capital, Inc. v. Granati (In Re Granati)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Davis, 293 U.S. at 332 , 55 S.Ct. at 153 (internal citations omitted); see also Branch Banking & Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bundy American Corp. v. Blankfort (In Re Blankfort)
Several other circuit courts have followed the Eighth Circuit formulation in In re Long, 774 F.2d 875, 880-81 (8th Cir.1985), which said that the word malice “must apply only to conduct more culpable than that which is in reckless disregard of creditors’ economic interest,” and that “knowledge that legal rights are being violated is insufficient to establish malice, absent some additional ‘aggravated circumstances,’ under Davis [v. Aetna Acceptance Co. 293 U.S. 328, 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151, 151, 153-54 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934)] and its recent progeny.” See In re Pasek, 983 F.2d 1524…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Food & Commercial Worker's Union Local 1995 v. Eldridge (In re Eldridge)
Davis, 293 U.S. at 334 , 55 S.Ct. at 154 (stating that an “obligation is not turned into one arising from a trust because the parties to one of the documents has chosen to speak of it as a trust”); Wilmington Trust Co. v. Martin, 35 B.R. 982 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1984); Great Am.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Eldridge
Davis, 293 U.S. at 334 , 55 S.Ct. at 154 (stating that an "obligation is not turned into one arising from a trust because the parties to one of the documents has chosen to speak of it as a trust"); Wilmington Trust Co. v. Martin, 35 B.R. 982 (Bankr.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Illinois, Department of the Lottery v. Marchiando (In Re Marchiando)
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
While federal law determines what a “fiduciary” is, state law takes on added importance in determining whether a specific case involves an “express trust.” See Davis, 293 U.S. at 334 , 55 S.Ct. at 154 (applying state law to the underlying question of whether the petitioner was a trustee); Guy, 101 B.R. at 986 ; McCraney, 63 B.R. at 65-66 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Central Fidelity Bank v. Higginbotham (In Re Higginbotham)
Davis, 293 U.S. at 332-33 , 55 S.Ct. at 153 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Division of Special Revenue, State of Connecticut v. Schusterman (In Re Schusterman)
(2×)
Id. at 333-334 , 55 S.Ct. at 153-154 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Littleton (In Re Littleton)
Davis, 293 U.S. at 332-33 , 55 S.Ct. at 153 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beneficial Finance Co. of New York, Inc. v. Contento (In Re Contento)
The key words are “willful and malicious,” because as noted in Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934), every act of conversion is not necessarily “willful and malicious,” because “[t]here may be a conversion which is innocent or technical, an unauthorized assumption of dominion without willfulness or malice.” Id. at 332 , 55 S.Ct. at 153 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DL&B Oil Co. v. Dawson (In Re Dawson)
Analyzing § 17(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, the Lambert court construed the term fiduciary narrowly, consistent with Davis v. Aetna Acceptance, 293 U.S. 328 at 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151 at 153, 79 L.Ed. 393 (1935).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kannon v. Blalock (In Re Blalock)
It is not enough that, by the very act of wrongdoing out of which the contested debt arose, the bankrupt has become chargeable as a trustee ex maleficio.” Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151, 153 [ 79 L.Ed. 393 ].
cited
Cited "see"
McGuinness v. Gannon (In re Gannon)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934).
cited
Cited "see"
Federal Insurance Co. v. Sorge (In re Sorge)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333-34 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934).
examined
Cited "see"
LeCann v. Cobham (In re Cobham)
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 334 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934); Hamby v. St.
cited
Cited "see"
Whitaker Securities, LLC v. Rosenfeld (In re Rosenfeld)
See Davis, 293 U.S. at 332 , 55 S.Ct. 151 .
examined
Cited "see"
Double Bogey Lp v. Sylvester Enea
(3×)
See In re Lewis, 97 F.3d at 1185 (quoting Davis, 293 U.S. at 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151 ).
cited
Cited "see"
Swenby v. Swenby (In re Swenby)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151, 153-54 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934).
cited
Cited "see"
Mirarchi v. Nofer (In re Nofer)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934); Yankowitz Law Firm, P.C. v. Tashlitsky (In re Tashlitsky), 492 B.R. 640, 644 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited "see"
Clear Sky Properties LLC v. Roussel (In re Roussel)
See In re Cochrane, 124 F.3d 978, 984 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Lewis v. Scott, 97 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.1996)), The statute “ ‘speaks of technical trusts, and not those which the law implies from the contract.’ ” In re Nail, 680 F.3d 1036 , 1039 (quoting Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934) and Chapman v. Forsyth, 43 U.S. 202, 208 , 2 How. 202 , 11 L.Ed. 236 (1844)).
cited
Cited "see"
Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Schupbach (In re Schupbach)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance, 293 U.S. at 331-33 , 55 S.Ct. 151 ; Farmers State Bank v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P., 23 Kan.App.2d 712, 715 , 935 P.2d 233, 235 (1997). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sonny Penix v. Parra (In re Parra)
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, Moore, 357 F.3d at 1129 (stating that the “malicious” component “requires proof ‘that the debtor either intend the resulting injury or intentionally take action that is substantially certain to cause the injury.’ ”)(quoting Hope v. Walker (In re Walker), 48 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir.1995)). 19 But because the Tenth Circuit directs that willful and malicious are separate, distinct requirements, “malicious” must be defined so that it is distinguish able from “willful.” This Court concludes that the “malicious” component of 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(6) requires an intentio…
cited
Cited "see"
AgChoice Farm Credit, ACA v. Glenn (In Re Glenn)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934), cited in GMAC Inc. v. Coley (In re Coley), 433 B.R. 476, 500 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tweedie v. Hermoyian (In re Hermoyian)
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Morganroth & Morganroth, PLLC v. Stallman (In re Stollman), 404 B.R. 244, 262 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.2009) (“ ‘[A]n act of con version, if willful and malicious, is an injury to property within the scope of [the § 523(a)(6) ] exception’ [to discharge].”) (quoting Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. at 332 , 55 S.Ct. 151 (using as an example “where the wrong was unexcused and wanton”)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Khan (In Re Khan)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333-34 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934) (holding that an “obligation is not turned into one arising from a trust because the parties to one of the documents has chosen to speak of it as a trust”); see also Chattowah Open Land Trust v. Jones, 281 Ga. 97, 99 , 636 S.E.2d 523 (2006) (noting that "strict use of the[ ] terms ['trust' and 'trustee'] is not required to establish a trust”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hawks Holdings, LLC v. Kalinowski (In Re Kalinowski)
See Allen v. Romero, 535 F.2d at 621 (stating that "the fiduciaiy relationship must be shown to exist prior to the creation of the debt in controversy.”) (citing Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. v. Berman (In Re Berman)
(2×)
See 293 U.S. at 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. v. Berman
(2×)
See 293 U.S. at 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Chaparral Materials, Inc. v. Ramos (In Re Ramos)
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151, 154 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934) (stating that “[i]t is not enough that, by the very act of wrongdoing out of which the contested debt arose, the bankrupt has become chargeable as a trustee ex maleficio.
cited
Cited "see"
GMAC Inc. v. Coley (In Re Coley)
See Davis, 293 U.S. at 334 , 55 S.Ct. 151 ; see also In re Strack, 524 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir.2008); Grant, 325 B.R. at 734 ; Zalusky, 2004 WL 5677099 , at *5 (collecting cases).
discussed
Cited "see"
Economic Development Growth Enterprises Corp. v. McDermott (In Re McDermott)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934); see also In re Dobrayel, 287 B.R. 3, 14 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2002) (indicating that “[t]he meaning of ‘fiduciary capacity’ under federal law is more restricted than under the more general common law or state law definition”).
cited
Cited "see"
Armendariz v. Galvan (In Re Galvan)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333 , 55 S.Ct. 151, 153 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934). 13 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Halstead v. Bilter (In Re Bilter)
See Davis, 293 U.S. at 334 , 55 S.Ct. 151 . 5 [And] ... in determining whether such a trust was established, we look to the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia, where the trust was allegedly created, for guidance.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hernandez v. Dorado (In Re Dorado)
See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 332 , 55 S.Ct. 151 , 79 L.Ed. 393 (1934)(holding that "a willful and malicious injury does not follow as of course from every act of conversion, without reference to the circumstances.”); Tinkler, 311 B.R. at 878 (nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6) based on debtor’s conversion nevertheless requires creditor to show that the conversion was both willful and malicious). 21 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IRVING TRUST CO., TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY,
v.
BOWDITCH Et Al.
v.
BOWDITCH Et Al.
173.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 3, 1934.
Mr. Lester D. Melzer, with whom Mr. Irving L. Ernst was on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Burton E. Eames for respondents.
Roberts.
Published
Citer courts: D. Maryland (3) · D. Colorado (1) · N.D. Illinois (1) · W.D. Michigan (1) · D. Montana (1) · E.D. Virginia (1) · W.D. Wisconsin (1)
Mr. Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is ruled by No. 22, Irving. Trust Co. v. A. W. Perry, Inc., decided this day, ante, p. 307. The stipulation in the lease is in all pertinent respects similar to that involved in No. 22. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming an order of the District Court admitting proof of claim, was therefore right, and is
Affirmed.