In re Blue Ridge Packing Co.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1903
• Docket Number: 355.
• Parties: In re BLUE RIDGE PACKING CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

125 F. 619

In re BLUE RIDGE PACKING CO.

No. 355.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

November 3, 1903

R. L Cannon, for the exceptions.

H. W Dunning, opposed.

ARCHBALD District Judge.

The exceptions are directed to the action of the referee in receiving and rejecting claims at the meeting of creditors called to elect a trustee, and to his approval of the person there chosen. Objection is made to the allowance of the claims of W. M. Alexander and of A. G. Helfrich because the title of the court is not given at the head of the proof in accordance with general order 21 and form No. 31 (89 F. ix xlii). But this is a mere informality, not enough to vitiate the proof if otherwise good, as it appears to be. There are other signs of carelessness in it, but the substance is there, and I think the claim was properly received.

The claims of Harrold & Fernsler, William Price, and Fred N. Bert were thrown out on the ground, in each case, that the consideration was not sufficiently stated. So far as the first two are concerned, this ruling was unquestionably correct. In the Harrold & Fernsler claim the consideration is said to be for 'printing done for said bankrupt at its request heretofore, to wit, in September, 1903, as per bill rendered. ' This is clearly an insufficient specification. It may inform, to a certain extent, of the origin and character of the debt, but the items by which it is made up should be given. In re Elder, Fed. Cas. No. 4,326; In re Scott (D.C.) 1 Am.Bankr.R. 553, 93 F. 418. If this bill was represented by an account, as seems to be implied, other creditors are entitled to have it in all its particulars just as it stands.

In the Price claim the debt is said to be for 'goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered by claimant to bankrupt at its request, consisting of green truck and vegetables, amounting to said sum of $140, with interest from * * *, being the balance now due on said claim on book account. ' Here there admittedly is an account, and the claimant is therefore bound to give the items, without which there is nothing in any way sufficiently informing. But I cannot agree with the referee that the same is true of the claim of Fred N. Bert. This is for $50, and the consideration is declared to be for 2,500 jar tops at $2.00 per 1000=$50. 1/3 blue, 1/3 white, 1/3 red. ' For all that can be seen, this is complete as it could be made. The real objection to this claim is that there is no date. This is certainly necessary to help individuate the debt, as well as to show that it is not outlawed, and, while it was not objected to on that ground, the defect is too patent to be passed by.

Begs and Graham made proof of claim, and were represented by power of attorney to Wm. N. Reynolds, Jr., which was held defective because not properly acknowledged. By regard order 21 (89 F ix), when a letter of attorney is executed on behalf of a partnership, the person executing it must make oath that he is a member of...