Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Minge

• Citation: 49 Minn. 454,52 N.W. 44
• Parties: CITIZENS' NAT. BANK v MINGE.
• Decision Date: 03 May 1892
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

49 Minn. 454

52 N.W. 44

CITIZENS' NAT. BANKvMINGE.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 3, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Under the “insolvent law,” any creditor or creditors who have claims, to the required amount, that are provable or allowable against the estate of the insolvent debtor, are qualified petitioners for the appointment of a receiver of his property.

2. A debt of the insolvent is allowable against his estate, although not yet due, and although secured by the liability of a third person as surety.

Appeal from district court, Otter Tail county; BAXTER, Judge.

Proceedings by the Citizens' National Bank against Ole A. Minge for the appointment of a receiver of his property. From an order refusing to make such appointment, the bank appeals. Reversed.

Mason & Hilton, for appellant.

H. F. Woodard, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

Section 2 of the insolvent law (chapter 148, Laws 1881, as amended by chapter 30, Laws 1889) provides that, whenever any insolvent debtor is guilty of certain specified acts of omission or commission, “any one or more of his creditors having claims against him, to the aggregate amount of at least $200, may petition the district court or a judge thereof, *** asking that a receiver be appointed,” etc.

1. To constitute a “claim” against the insolvent, within the meaning of this act, undoubtedly it must be a demand which is provable or allowable against his estate in the insolvency proceedings. But all that is required to qualify the petitioners to institute these proceedings is that they have claims that are provable or allowable to the required amount. To be provable, they need not be due. Under all bankrupt or insolvent laws in this country or England, all debts of the bankrupt, whether due or to become due, are held to be provable, and entitled to share the distribution of his estate. Any other rule would be subversive of the prime object of a bankrupt law. Bump, Bankr. 28; In re Alexander, 4 N. B. R. 178, 1 Low. 470.

2. Under the late federal bankrupt act, it was provided that, where a debt was secured on the property of the bankrupt, it could only be proved for the balance over and above the value of the security, unless the creditor filed a release of his security. Our insolvent law contains no express provision of this kind, and whether any such is implied is a question not now before us. But, under all bankrupt laws of which we have any knowledge, it has been uniformly held that, where the debt is...