In re Brown

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
Citation111 F. 979
PartiesIn re BROWN.
Decision Date29 November 1901

111 F. 979

In re BROWN.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

November 29, 1901

Paul F. Coste, for petitioner Franklin Bank.

E. C. Lackland, for Brown.

ROGERS, District Judge.

On the 25th of June, 1901, the Franklin Bank, a corporation of the city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, [111 F. 980.] filed its petition in bankruptcy against Benjamin Brown, and, after alleging the cause of bankruptcy, further averred that the creditors of the said Benjamin Brown are less than twelve in number. On the 19th of July the said Benjamin Brown answered, denying the allegations of bankruptcy, and further averring that his creditors were more than twelve in number, setting forth in his answer a list of thirteen creditors, with their addresses, and the amounts which he severally owes them. Proof was heard, and it appeared on the trial that one of his creditors, W. H. Wellpot, has assigned his claim, and his assignee has since joined in the petition. It also appears from the proof that H. W. Eggers, another creditor of his, claims that he is not a creditor at all; but, assuming that such is the case, there are still twelve creditors of the bankrupt, including the petitioning creditor.

It was urged on the trial that, inasmuch as the proof developed the fact that the bankrupt had solicited the other creditors not to unite in the petition in bankruptcy, he was guilty of collusion, and he should therefore be adjudicated a bankrupt, without reference to the number, inasmuch as the creditors, with the exception of plaintiff and one or two others, are creditors for mere nominal sums. A complete answer to this is that the petitioning creditor has also solicited nearly all of the creditors to join in the petition, and offered to take an assignment of their claims or to pay them. If one party has the right to solicit the creditors to unite in the petition, the court can see no reason why the bankrupt may not solicit them not to do so, and therefore this contention, the court thinks, is not tenable. It is true that most of the claims of the creditors are for mere nominal sums, but Bankr. Law, Secs. 59b, 59d, make no discrimination as to the amounts which creditors may hold. If the creditors are more than twelve, there must be three petitioning creditors, whose claims amount, in the aggregate, to $500 or over, and this without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • In re Alta Title Co., Bankruptcy No. 84C-01113.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Utah
    • November 4, 1985
    ...solicit other creditors to join in the petition and the debtor may solicit the creditors not to unite in the petition. See In re Brown, 111 F. 979, 980 (E.D.Mo.1901); Advisory Committee Note to former Bankruptcy Rule Section 303(c) permits creditors other than the original creditor(s) to jo......
  • Rassi, Matter of, 82-1247
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • February 18, 1983 Murray, 14 F.Supp. 146 (W.D.N.Y.1936); In re Branche, 275 F. 555 (N.D.N.Y.1921); In re Blount, 142 F. 263 (E.D.Ark.1906); In re Brown, 111 F. 979 (E.D.Mo.1901); In re Skye Marketing Corp., 11 B.R. 891 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.1981). 3 The Rassis, the courts below, and our research reveal no cases......
  • In re Colorado Lime Company, 68-B-3719.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • April 28, 1969
    ......1934); In re Luther, 63 F.Supp. 83 (W.D.Mo. 1945), aff'd, 151 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 781, 66 S.Ct. 681, 90 L.Ed. 1009 (1946); In re Murray, 14 F.Supp. 146 (W.D.N.Y.1936); In re Hall, 27 F.2d 999 (W.D.Pa.1928); In re Alden, 2 F.2d 61 (D.Mass.1924); In re Brown, 111 F. 979 (E.D.Mo.1901). The basis of the decisions is that the exclusion of Blount is not in the Bankruptcy Act § 59(e) and its predecessors and, therefore, that the courts are not justified in engrafting this additional exclusion; that the proper appeal was to Congress rather than to the ......
  • Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Tarlton
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • December 18, 1923
    ......Cas. No. 12,815;. In re Bevins (C.C.A. 2d Cir.) 21 Am.Bankr.Rep. 344,. 165 F. 434, 91 C.C.A. 302; Matter of Kehoe (C.C.A. 2d. Cir.) 36 Am.Bankr.Rep. 891, 233 F. 415, 147 C.C.A. 351);. or a debtor may importune his creditors to proceed and the. adjudication still be valid (Matter of Brown (C.C. Mo.) 7. Am.Bankr.Rep. 102, 111 F. 979); or, if a creditor. solicit others to join with him, the bankrupt may solicit. them not to do so (In re Brown (C.C. Mo.) 7. Am.Bankr.Rep. 102, 111 F. 979; Matter of Kehoe. (C.C.A. 2d Cir.) 36 Am.Bankr.Rep. 891, 233 F. 415, 147. C.C.A. 351); and the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT