Aiello v. Crampton
| Decision Date | 06 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 3,774. |
| Citation | 201 F. 891 |
| Parties | AIELLO v. CRAMPTON. In re ALEXANDER MERCANTILE CO.'S ESTATE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jesse G. Northcutt, of Trinidad, Colo. (A. W. McHendrie, of Trinidad, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.
H. L Bickley, J. Leahy, and L. S. Wilson, all of Raton, N.M., for appellee.
Before SANBORN and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and WM. H. MUNGER district judge.
WM. H MUNGER, District Judge.
The Alexander Mercantile Company, of Raton, N.M., was a corporation engaged in the mercantile business, and on the 22d day of July, 1910, certain of its creditors filed a petition in the district court for the Fourth judicial district of the territory of New Mexico, asking that said Alexander Mercantile Company be adjudged a bankrupt. Such proceedings were had therein that on September 27, 1910, said company was adjudged a bankrupt. The case was duly referred to a referee, and various creditors filed their claims for allowance against the bankrupt estate, among them being appellant, John Aiello, whose claim was based upon a note for the sum of $5,000, executed March 27, 1910, by said Alexander Mercantile Company to the Southern Colorado Mercantile Company, a corporation of Trinidad, Colo.; said note having been transferred by assignment to appellant, John Aiello. Objections were filed to the allowance of the claim and after hearing had the claim was, on November 5, 1910, allowed by the referee. From the order of the referee allowing the claim, the trustee duly filed a petition for a review thereof. On May 13, 1911, the district court of the Fourth judicial district of the territory after hearing had, reversed the order of the referee allowing the claim, and entered its order directing that the claim be disallowed. From this judgment of the district court appellant, John Aiello, appealed to the Supreme Court of the territory of New Mexico. As the case was pending in the Supreme Court of the territory upon its admission as a state, the Supreme Court, pursuant to the provisions of the enabling act, transferred the cause to this court.
From the facts it appears that the Alexander Mercantile Company being indebted to the Southern Colorado Mercantile Company, gave its note to the Southern Colorado Mercantile Company some time in the latter part of the year 1909, for the sum of $5,000, which note was renewed on March 27, 1910; said renewal note being the one sought to be proved by John Aiello as a claim against the bankrupt estate. It also appears from the evidence that some time during April, 1910, the Alexander Mercantile Company being insolvent, sold to one Guy M. Alexander a portion of its stock of merchandise for the sum of $2,500, in consideration of which Guy M. Alexander and his father executed notes aggregating the sum of $2,500, secured by a second mortgage upon a piece of real property, said notes being dated April 26, 1910, and the same were given to, and received by, the Southern Colorado Mercantile Company, and that amount credited upon the account which the Alexander Mercantile Company owed to it. Appellant, John Aiello, was, at the time of the transaction referred to, president...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Majestic Co. v. Orpheum Circuit
...267 F. 47; 12 Columbia Law Review, 496, 517; Richmond, etc., Co. v. Richmond, etc., R. R., supra; Watson v. Bonfils, supra; Aiello v. Crampton (C. C. A.) 201 F. 891; East St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Jarvis (C. C. A.) 92 F. 735. The corporation will be regarded as a legal entity as a general......
-
Noble v. Farmers Union Trading Co.
...63 S.E. 981; State ex rel. City of Tacoma v. Tacoma Ry. & Power Co., 61 Wash. 507, 112 P. 506, 508, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 720; Aiello v. Crampton, 8 Cir., 201 F. 891, 893. R.C.M.1947, Title 14, Chapter 2, sections 14-201 to 14-222 set forth the special statutes of this state governing the incorpo......
-
Alexander v. Cosden Pipe Line Co., 665.
...267, 28 S. Ct. 288, 52 L. Ed. 481; Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 115 U. S. 587, 6 S. Ct. 194, 29 L. Ed. 499; Aiello v. Crampton (C. C. A. 8) 201 F. 891. But there are certain exceptions to this general rule. The existence of the corporation as a distinct entity is a legal fic......
-
PLANTERS'COTTON OIL CO. v. Hopkins
...679. Nor does the fact that one person owns all or substantially all of the stock of the corporation at all change the rule. Aiello v. Crampton (C. C. A.) 201 F. 891; Ga. Ry. Co. v. Georgia (D. C.) 289 F. 878; Winfield v. Wichita Natural Gas Co. (C. C. A.) 267 F. 47. Particularly is it true......