23 F.Supp. 121 (W.D.Pa.), 15076, In re Keck

Docket Nº:15076.
Citation:23 F.Supp. 121
Party Name:In re KECK et al. [*] District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. Date Not Given
Court:United States District Courts, 3th Circuit

Page 121

23 F.Supp. 121 (W.D.Pa.)

In re KECK et al. [*]

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Date Not Given

No. 15076.

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.

Page 122

GIBSON, District Judge.

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: '2. That J. S. Keck and Leslie C. Spindler, individually and as partners trading as Keck's New Garage, the persons against whom a petition for adjudication in bankruptcy has been filed, were, at and before the filing of said petition, and still are, justly and truly indebted to said C.I.T. Corporation in the sum of $18,803.55.'

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...

To continue reading