In re Fixen & Co.
Decision Date | 15 September 1899 |
Docket Number | 1,282. |
Citation | 96 F. 748 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | In re FIXEN & CO. |
E. T Dunning, for petitioning creditors.
John T Jones, for witness M. N. Sheldon.
R. H F. Variel, for Chapin-Tibbot Co.
The material facts are these:
A creditors' petition was filed against said bankrupt Fixen & Co., a corporation, August 14, 1899, and the order to show cause thereon was made returnable on the 21st day of the same month. On September 1, 1899, said corporation was duly adjudged a bankrupt, and a general reference of the cause was made. Prior to the adjudication, to wit, on August 19, 1899, on the application hereinafter mentioned, it was ordered by the court:
The application or petition for said order alleged, among other things: That said bankrupt for many years last past, and up to and just prior to June, 1899, had been the owner of a retail store, containing a large stock of merchandise, in Los Angeles, Cal., worth $60,000, substantially all the property of said corporation. That Elias C. Chapin and seven other persons, specifically named, conspired together to, and did, organize, under the laws of the territory of Arizona, a corporation known as the Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company, with an authorized capital of $350,000, of 3,500 shares, of $100 each, of stock, nonassessable, and the stockholders not personally liable for corporate debts. That said stock was divided into common stock of $175,000 in amount, and the balance preferred stock (only common stock entitled to vote at stockholders' meetings), and that said parties subscribed for $226,700 out of a total subscription of $284,400, and that, of their subscription, $154,200 consisted of common or voting stock, out of a total of $160,000 of common or voting stock. That the officers and directors, who were Elias C. Chapin, president, John W. Tibbot, vice president, S. Goodenow, treasurer, W. M. Sheldon, secretary, J. M. Davies, J. B. Tibbot, M. N. Sheldon, and two others to petitioners unknown, also conspired, by false and fraudulent representations and fraudulent promises made to the said Fixen & Co., to procure, and did procure, from said Fixen & Co., in June, 1899, a transfer of said store and merchandise, without any adequate, sufficient, or legal consideration, and with intent on the part of the promoters, officers, and stockholders of the said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company to obtain said stock of merchandise, and appropriate the same and the proceeds thereof to the use of the said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company, without the payment of any adequate or proper consideration therefor, and to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of said Fixen & Co. of their just debts and obligations. That said Fixen & Co. were indebted to various creditors in the aggregate sum of about $55,000 at the time of said transfer, none of which debts were assumed by said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company, and by said transfer, and the want of any adequate consideration therefor, said Fixen & Co. were rendered irretrievably insolvent, and that of all the matters and things aforesaid said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company and the stockholders, directors, and officers thereof, then and there had notice. That said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company took immediate possession of said stock of merchandise and business, and from thence until the 22d day of July, 1899, sold and disposed of the same at reduced prices, and rapidly converted the same into money, for the purpose of raising funds to pay off the notes of said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company, amounting to $25,000, which had been given in part payment for said merchandise; only $5,000 having been paid in cash; the balance of the consideration for said transfer being worthless stock in said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company. That, on the day and year last aforesaid, said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company, being unable to meet said notes, and having no money or means of raising money upon its property with which to pay said notes, and being then and there insolvent, and to avoid attachments upon said property, illegally, and without any adequate, sufficient, or lawful consideration, transferred said stock of merchandise and business to said S. Goodenow, who took said transfer of said merchandise, then amounting to $40,000 in value, and agreed to pay and take up said notes of the said Chapin-Tibbot Commercial Company; and immediately thereafter said S. Goodenow caused to be organized a new corporation, by the name of the Goodenow-Sheldon-Fixen Company, and transferred to it the remaining portion of said stock of merchandise. That said corporation is organized under the laws of the state of California, with an authorized capital of $200,000, $75,000 of which is subscribed as follows: S. Goodenow, 350 shares, $35,000; Willard M. Sheldon, 120 shares, $12,000; A. H. Fixen, 100 shares, $10,000; Frank N. Gibbs, 80 shares, $8,000; Millard N. Sheldon, 100 shares, $10,000,-- and which said subscription embraces all the stock which has been subscribed or issued by said corporation. That said corporation has no paid-up capital, other than the stock of merchandise and good will so transferred to it as aforesaid, and that said A. H. Fixen and W. M. Sheldon are financially irresponsible. That said Goodenow-Sheldon-Fixen Company is rapidly selling and disposing of said merchandise at greatly reduced prices, and sacrificing the same. That a trustee in bankruptcy cannot, in all probability, in the ordinary course of procedure, be elected herein before some time in October, 1899, and in the meantime said stock of merchandise, or at least the substantial portion thereof, will, in all human probability, have been dissipated and disposed of, and nothing left for the creditors of said Fixen & Co., except actions for damages and stockholders' liabilities against the persons connected with said corporation, which would be inadequate remedies for the creditors of said bankrupt. That it is absolutely necessary for the preservation of said bankrupt estate to take charge of the property of said bankrupt, until the trustee has qualified, by the appointment of a receiver, with authority in him to begin and prosecute all necessary actions and proceedings to recover and preserve said estate. Said receiver duly qualified on the 19th day of August, 1899.
On August 26, 1899, the court ordered:
'That M. N. Sheldon, Elias C. Chapin, John W. Tibbot, S. Goodenow, Willard M. Sheldon, J. W. McCracken, and Frank N. Gibbs be and appear before William D. Stephens, referee in bankruptcy of this court, to whom this matter is hereby referred, to be examined before him, on the 26th day of August, 1899, at 2 p.m., at the office of said referee, rooms 5-7 of the Law Building, 125 Temple street, in the city of Los Angeles, California, concerning the acts, conduct, and property of said bankrupts, Fixen & Co.'
The petition for said order alleged, among other things:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Freeman v. Seligson
...1938); Herron v. Blackford, supra note 32, 264 F.2d at 725. 44 See Herron v. Blackford, supra note 32, 264 F.2d at 725; In re Fixen & Co., 96 F. 748, 755 (S.D.Cal.1899). 45 See note 13, supra and accompanying 46 Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964).......
-
In re Federal Copper of Tennessee, Inc.
...re Eastern Utilities Investing Corp., 98 F.2d 620, 622 (3rd Cir. 1938); In re Samuels, 215 F. 845, 850 (2nd Cir. 1914); In re Fixen & Co., 96 F. 748, 755 (S.D.Cal.1899); In re Ratmansky, 7 B.R. 829, 833 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1980). See also 2 Collier on Bankruptcy § 21.12, at 308 (14th ed. The dis......
-
Gary Realty Company v. Kelly
... ... All arrangements between the respondent and the receiver ... being verbal, would at the most create a tenancy, which ... respondent could and did terminate by the statutory ... month's notice. (a) Termination clause is applicable to a ... chancery receiver. 5 Cyc. 246-12; In re Fixen, 96 F ... 748; Cox v. Wall, 99 F. 546; Galbraith v ... Wood, 124 Minn. 210; Louis K. Liggett v ... Wilson, 224 Mass. 456. (b) Appointment of receiver ipso ... facto terminated lease. 1 Bouvier's Dictionary p. 585; 2 ... Tiffany, Landlord & Tenant, par. 194c, p. 1368; 24 Cyc. 1360; ... ...
-
Maynor v. Schaefer
... ... especially after adjudication. This is upon the theory that ... the duty to take charge of it carries with it the power and ... duty to take active steps in court when necessary to obtain ... its possession. In re Barrett, D.C., 132 F. 362; ... In re Dempster, 8 Cir., 172 F. 353; In re Fixen ... & Co., D.C., 96 F. 748. Compare Rivoli Drug Co. v ... Lynch, 9 Cir., 50 F.2d 536, criticised in Re Cox ... Baking Co., 2 Cir., 77 F.2d 294. That a receiver after ... adjudication is more than a mere custodian of the property in ... the course of administration. Clark v. Huckaby, 10 ... ...