In re Chequasset Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1901 |
| Citation | 112 F. 56 |
| Parties | In re CHEQUASSET LUMBER CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
William H. Janes, for bankrupt.
Henry Melville, for creditors.
This is a motion to set aside the subpoena, petition, and all proceedings upon the ground that the petition is not signed by the petitioners named in the petition, and is not signed or verified in the manner prescribed by law. The proceeding was instituted by three creditors, viz. the First National Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio, the Second National Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Fifth National Bank of Cincinnati Ohio, all corporations organized and existing under the laws of the United States. The petition sets forth the necessary facts required in an involuntary petition and is signed as follows:
'The First National Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio. 'The Second National Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio. 'The Fifth National Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio. 'By Henry Melville Petitioners' Attorney.'
The verifications are as follows:
'United States of America, Southern District of New York, City County, and State of New York-- ss.: On this 14th day of November, 1901, before me personally appeared Charles M. Leslie and John Ledyard Lincoln, who severally made solemn oath: That they are attorneys and counselors at law of the supreme court of the state of Ohio and of the district, circuit, and circuit court of appeals of the Southern district of Ohio, and that said John Ledyard Lincoln is a counselor at law admitted to practice in the supreme court of the United States, and that they are the attorneys and agents of the said petitioners in all matters recited in and relating to the said petition. That they have read the foregoing petition, and know the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true. That their sources of information and the grounds of their belief are, among other things, examination of the original notes recited in the said petition; examination of the books of the said the Chequasset Lumber Company, now in the possession of the said receiver, Eugene F. Perry, at 66 Broadway, in the city, county, and state of New York; statements made to them by the officers of the said petitioning banks and by the said receiver. That the reason this affidavit is made by the said Leslie and Lincoln is that each of the said petitioners is a corporation organized under the laws of the United States, having its only office and place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, more than 100 miles from the city of New York, and having no officer within this judicial district; and that they have full authority from the said petitioning banks, and have been authorized by them to make this affidavit.
Charles M. Leslie. 'John Ledyard Lincoln.
'Sworn to before me this 14th day of November, 1901.
'John A. Valentine, Notary Public, Kings Co. (Seal)
'Certificate filed in N.Y. county.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Slatkin
... ... familiar with the same than any officers of the objecting ... creditors. ' In re Chequasset Lumber Co. (D.C.) ... 112 F. 56; In re Baerncopf (D.C.) 117 F. 975; In ... re Hunt (D.C.) 118 F. 282; In re Vastbinder, supra; ... In re Milgraum ... ...
-
In re Bellah
... ... is fatal. It is not, however, an incurable defect, ... jurisdictional or otherwise, but can be remedied by ... amendment. In re Chequasset Lumber Co. (D.C.) 112 F ... [116 F. 77] ... Bank v. Craig (D.C.) 110 F. 137; Carriage Co. v ... Stengel, 37 C.C.A. 210, ... ...
-
In re Royal Circle of Friends Bldg. Corporation, 9154
...Co., 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 976; Kattelman v. Madden, 8 Cir., 88 F.2d 858; Green River Deposit Bank v. Craig, D.C., 110 F. 137; In re Chequasset Lumber Co., D.C., 112 F. 56; Leidigh Carriage Co. v. Stengel, 6 Cir., 95 F. 637; In re Farthing, D.C., 202 F. 557; In re Bellah, D.C., 116 F. 69; Manke......
-
In re O'Brien
...Co. v. Stengel, 95 F. 637, 641 (C. C. A. 6); Green River Deposit Bank v. Craig, 110 F. 137 (D. C. W. D. Ky.); In re Chequasset Lumber Co., 112 F. 56 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); Lubell Bros. v. M. J. L. Shoe Shops, 56 F.(2d) 158, 159, 160 (C. C. A. 3). See also, as to petition for discharge, In re ......