Frederic Grant Shoe Company v. Laird Company
| Decision Date | 23 February 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 35,35 |
| Parties | FREDERIC L. GRANT SHOE COMPANY, Bankrupt, Plff. in Err., v. W. M. LAIRD COMPANY, of Pittsburg, Pa |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. P. M. French and Satterlee, Bissell, Taylor, & French for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Hiram R. Wood and McGuire & Wood for defendant in error.
This case comes up on a certificate concerning the jurisdiction of the district court on the following facts: The W. M. Laird Company filed a petition in bankruptcy against the Frederic L. Grant Shoe Company, alleging acts of bankruptcy, and setting up a claim for $3,732.80 for the breach of an express warranty of shoes sold to it by the latter. The shoe company answered, denying the foregoing allegations, and denying that the claim alleged was a provable claim. The case coming on to be tried before a jury, it moved the court to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction. The motion was denied, and insolvency and acts of bankruptcy being admitted, the claim was liquidated at $3,454, the shoe company offering no evidence. The shoe company was adjudged a bankrupt, and, at the same time, the judge certified that the jurisdiction of the court to make such an adjudication on a claim for unliquidated damages was the only question in issue. Afterwards this writ of error was brought, the taking of jurisdiction being the only error assigned.
It already has been decided between these parties that a writ of error, not an appeal, is the proper means of bringing the case here. 203 U. S. 502, 51 L. ed. 292, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 161. But the defendant in error moves to dismiss on the grounds that the writ was not sued out in time, because general order 36(2) allows only thirty days for appeals; and that no bill of exceptions was filed. Neither reason is good. The statutes fix the time within which writs of error may be brought. Rev. Stat. § 1008, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 715. See act of March 3, 1891, chap. 517, §§ 4, 5, 26 Stat. at L. 826, 827, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 547. Allen v. Southern P. R. Co. 173 U. S. 486, 43 L. ed. 775, 777, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518. A bill of exceptions was not necessary, as it would have added nothing to what is patent on the face of the record. C. H. Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson, 203 U. S. 278, 51 L. ed. 181, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 102.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that a motion to dismiss, earlier than the one we have mentioned, was made and overruled (125 Fed. 576), and that thereafter, on a petition for review, the decision was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, 66 C. C. A. 78, 130 Fed. 881. Although in the report the case is headed 'In Error to the District Court,' it appears by stipulation that the proceeding was a revisory one under § 24b of the bankruptcy act [30 Stat. at L. 553, chap. 541, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3432], the order having been interlocutory. It is suggested that the plaintiff in error is concluded by the action of the circuit court of appeals. But, notwithstanding the objections to a double resort, we do not perceive how such an interlocutory decision, even of the higher court, can prevent a case, otherwise proper to be brought here, from being taken up after a final judgment is reached.
Coming to the question certified, we are of opinion that the decision of the courts below was right. The argument to the contrary is based on the letter of the statute, and is easily stated and understood. By § 59b petitions to have a debtor adjudged a bankrupt may be filed only by creditors who have provable claims. By § 63b, 'Unliquidated claims against the bankrupt may, pursuant to application to the court, be liquidated in such manner as it shall direct, and may thereafter be proved and allowed against his estate.' The word 'thereafter' shows, it is said, that they are not yet proved to exist when merely presented and sworn to. Therefore it does not yet appear that there is any foundation for the proceeding, in the requisite amount or even the existence of the claim. But there must be a proceeding in court before a liquidation can take place, and, therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farm Mortgage v. Harry, JAMES-DICKINSON
...deceit was long the sole remedy for a breach of warranty, and it still lies in some jurisdictions. See F. L. Grant Shoe Co. v. Laid, 212 U. S. 445, 449, 29 S. Ct. 332, 53 L. Ed. 591; Nash v. Minn. Ins. & Trust Co., 163 Mass. 574, 587, 40 N. E. 1039, 28 L. R. A. 753, 47 Am. St. Rep. 489; Car......
-
Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Back Bay Hotels Garage, Inc.
...in order to be provable, but may be liquidated pending the proceedings, and then proved. Frederick L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W. M. Laird Co., 212 U. S. 445, 29 S. Ct. 332, 53 L. Ed. 591;Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U. S. 549, 35 S. Ct. 289, 59 L. Ed. 713;Maynard v. Elli......
-
Stamp v. Insurance Co. of North America
...in bankruptcy. See Clarke v. Rogers, 228 U.S. 534, 542-44, 33 S.Ct. 587, 588-89, 57 L.Ed. 953 (1913); Grant Shoe Co. v. Laird, 212 U.S. 445, 29 S.Ct. 332, 53 L.Ed. 591 (1909); Tindle v. Birkett, 205 U.S. 183, 186, 27 S.Ct. 493, 494, 51 L.Ed. 762 (1907); Crawford v. Burke, 195 U.S. 176, 187,......
-
Schuler v. Union News Co.
... ... Schuler, deceased, against the Union News Company, ... wherein verdicts for the defendant were ... 1172; ... [4 N.E.2d 467] Frederic L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W. M. Laird ... Co., 212 ... ...