In re Keck
| Decision Date | 31 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 15076.,15076. |
| Citation | 23 F. Supp. 121 |
| Parties | In re KECK et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Theodore L. Wilson, of Clarion, Pa., referee in bankruptcy for Clarion county, Pa.
Leslie R. Himes, of New Bethlehem, Pa., trustee.
Sachs & Caplan and Leonard M. S. Morris, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for C. I. T. Corporation.
On May 3, 1930, the C. I. T. Corporation, under the above caption, filed its claim with the referee. The second paragraph of the claim reads as follows:
The succeeding paragraph sets out the consideration of the debt. By it only a partnership debt was disclosed.
On August 19, 1936, a meeting of the creditors of J. S. Keck, individually, was held for the purpose of examining and passing upon the final account of the trustee. At this meeting the attorney for the C. I. T. Corporation objected to the account, as it did not include his client as one of the individual creditors. He asserted that the second paragraph of the proof, supra, was sufficient to establish a claim against the individual estates of the partners. The referee ruled against this contention, and at an adjourned meeting refused to admit in evidence a written guaranty of J. S. Keck of the partnership debt. He also refused to allow the amendment of the proof of claim in order that it should disclose a claim against the individual estates of the partners, holding that the request for such allowance was not timely. These rulings of the referee have been certified to this court for review.
Considered by itself, the second paragraph of the original proof of claim would be sufficient to indicate a claim against the individual estates of the partners and to bring it within the scope of the ruling in Re Kardos, 2 Cir., 17 F.2d 706, by which an amendment was held proper after the statutory period for filing claims had expired. The facts of the Kardos Case and those of the instant matter, however, are not entirely parallel. In the Kardos matter the claim against the individual had the same foundation as that against the partnership. In the present proceeding the claimant set forth at some length, and with considerable specification, a claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Starks, No. 22033.
...shape was asserted in the original claim. * * *" To the same effect are Tarbell v. Crex Carpet Co., 8 Cir., 1937, 90 F.2d 683; Matter of Keck, D.C., 23 F.Supp. 121; Id., 3 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 589; Matter of Skidmore, D.C.N.D.Ala., 1939, 29 F.Supp. 293; cf. In re Rothert, 7 Cir., 1932, 61 F.......
-
In re Kellett Aircraft Corporation
...recommended. The facts upon which the claim is based were set forth in detail in the timely petitions previously filed. Cf. In re Keck, D. C., 23 F.Supp. 121, affirmed 98 F.2d 589, certiorari denied 305 U.S. 646, 59 S.Ct. 148, 83 L.Ed. 417. Accordingly, in this situation I would not feel ju......
-
Commonwealth Corp., Matter of
...court entered an order denying the Mobile bank's motion, citing In re G. L. Miller & Co., 45 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1930), and In re Keck, 23 F.Supp. 121 (W.D.Pa.), aff'd sub nom. C.I.T. Corp. v. Himes (In re Keck ), 98 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 646, 59 S.Ct. 148, 83 L.Ed. 417 (......
-
In re Crown Cabinets, Inc.
...that were insufficient even to put the referee on inquiry as to the basis of the claim asserted in the late amendment. In In re Keck, W.D.Pa. 1938, 23 F.Supp. 121, 122, the court stated that "the claim against the individuals upon which the C.I.T. Corporation relies i. e., the amended claim......