In re Erie Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 26 September 1906 |
Citation | 150 F. 817 |
Parties | In re ERIE LUMBER CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Walter A. Harris, for Charles Schimmelfing, mortgagee.
John P Ross, for Citizens' Bank of McRae, mortgagee.
Lane & Park, for American National Bank, holder of receiver's certificates.
George S. Jones and William E. Martin, Jr., for creditors furnishing supplies to receivers.
Merrill P. Callaway, for bankrupt.
The Erie Lumber Company had its manufacturing plant near Lumber City, in this district. It was a venture of an important character in the manufacture of lumber. In addition to the sawmill, there was extensive machinery for the manufacture of veneering, which is largely used in furniture and cabinet work. The plant was under the control of one Alfred Short who represented certain interests, and Sylvester J. Tinthoff who represented others. There was an utter disagreement between these men, and finally Tinthoff, who represented the creditors, filed a proceeding praying that the Erie Lumber Company be adjudged an involuntary bankrupt. This petition was filed on November 8, 1904. Shortly thereafter the creditors filed an ancillary petition for the appointment of a receiver. It alleged, among other facts, that the property of the company consisted principally of steam sawmills, planing mill, veneering mill, kilns, lumber, logs, and timber; that a great deal of timber had been felled and was lying in the woods unprotected; that this was subject to be carried off and appropriated; and that there were other properties consisting of mules and live stock used in connection with the mills which were not receiving proper care. The representations of the petition were of that urgent character which induced the action authorized by the bankruptcy law, and the court appointed the marshal to take charge of the property and assets and preserve them. Thereafter Alfred Short, secretary and treasurer of the company, filed an answer in its behalf. This answer, however, was subsequently withdrawn. It denied the bankruptcy, and charged that the original petition had been collusively brought. There had been, as stated, great friction between the Short and Tinthoff interests. It seemed now that this would be removed. An agreement was drawn, signed by counsel representing Short, party of the one part, and the petitioning creditors, of the other part. The agreement provided that the parties should jointly apply to the court for an order providing for the operation of the business by joint receivers, according to the stipulations outlined in the agreement. A pertinent clause is the following:
The recital of the agreement was that it was 'advantageous to the said Erie Lumber Company and its creditors that said business be conducted by receivers of the court of bankruptcy. ' All parties at interest represented to the court that it was highly advantageous, both to the bankrupt and to the creditors, to keep the estate as a going business, and, having been convinced that this was true, on December 21, 1904, by a decree of that date, the agreement was approved and made effective. The order authorizing this policy was carefully considered and was drawn with great care. It attempted to guard the interests of all the creditors, and to provide for every reasonable contingency which could be anticipated. Substantially the full order is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clay v. Waters
...v. Goodfellow-Brooks Shoe Co. (C.C.) 141 F. 218, 220; State Bank of Chicago v. Cox, 74 C.C.A. 285, 287, 143 F. 91, 93; In re Erie Lumber Company (D.C.) 150 F. 817, 829; In re Fleischer (D.C.) 151 F. 81, 82. The of the Supreme Court in York Manufacturing Co. v. Cassell, 201 U.S. 344, 353, 26......
-
Shumake v. Basic Metals Mining Corp.
...Bankruptcy (4 Ed.), sec. 1382, p. 18; 1 Remington on Bankruptcy (4 Ed.), sec. 437, p. 531; In re Wilson, 108 F. 197, l. c. 198; In re Erie Lumber Co., 150 F. 817, l. c. In re Mitchell, 212 F. 932, l. c. 933; In re Howe, 235 F. 908, l. c. 909; Maryland Casualty Co. v. J. H. Parker Co., 279 F......
-
Miller, Franklin & Co. v. Gentry
...Estate, 252 Pa. 372, 97 A. 453; Wolf v. Lovering, 159 F. 91; Greenough v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 251 Pa. 522, 96 A. 1053; In re Erie Lumber Co., 150 F. 817.] In present case there can be no question that the plaintiff contracted with the defendant in his official capacity as receiver, an......
-
Coursey v. International Harvester Co.
...See, also, Northern Finance Corporation v. Byrnes, 8 Cir., 5 F.2d 11; United Surety Co. v. Iowa Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 179 F. 55; In re Erie Lbr. Co., D.C., 150 F. 817; Union Trust Co. v. Southern Sawmills & Lbr. Co., 4 Cir., 166 F. 193; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Grape Creek Coal Company, C.C......