In re Frederick L. Grant Shoe Co.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1904 |
| Docket Number | 139. |
| Citation | 130 F. 881 |
| Parties | In re FREDERICK L. GRANT SHOE CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
P. M French, for petitioner.
Hiram Wood, for respondent.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.
The issues herein are raised by the petition of the alleged bankrupt to review the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York denying its motion to dismiss proceedings in involuntary bankruptcy. The questions of law presented appear from the following allegations of the petitioning creditor and of the alleged bankrupt: The alleged bankrupt is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of shoes. It owes debts to the amount of $1,000 and over, and is insolvent and has less than 12 creditors. It sold to the petitioning creditor shoes under an express warranty, which warranty was broken, to the damage of petitioner in the sum of $3,732.80. Within four months prior to the filing of this petition it committed an act of bankruptcy, by assigning all its property to a single creditor, under an agreement that other creditors except this petitioning creditor. The alleged bankrupt denied its insolvency and the alleged breach of warranty, and demanded a jury trial. It also moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the damages for the alleged breach of warranty were unliquidated and therefore were not a provable claim against it. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, and directed that the claim of the petitioning creditor be liquidated at the jury trail demanded by the alleged bankrupt.
Section 59b of the bankrupt act (Act July 1, 1989, c. 541, 30 Stat 561 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 3445))provides for the filing of petitions in involuntary bankruptcy by 'creditors who have provable claims.' Section 63 of said act (30 Stat 563 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 3447)) includes among the debts of the bankrupt which may be proved and allowed against his estate those 'founded upon an open account or upon a contract express or implied. ' In the case at bar the petitioning creditor alleges that his claim is founded upon an express contract. The court below has found that the claim, although unliquidated, is a provable one, and, under the provisions of section 63b of said act (30 Stat. 563 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 3447)), has provided for its liquidation. The effect of the denial of the motion to dismiss is only to preserve and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Merrill
... ... 315, 50 C.C.A. 264; ... In re Stern, 116 F. 604, 54 C.C.A. 60; In re ... Frederick L. Grant Shoe Co. (C.C.A.) 130 F. 881) ... It is, ... however, the nature of the claim, ... ...
-
Keen v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation
...Co. of Illinois v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n, 1916, 240 U.S. 581, 36 S.Ct. 412, 60 L.Ed. 811, L.R.A.1917B, 580; In re Frederick L. Grant Shoe Co., 2 Cir., 1904, 130 F. 881. In the case of Northwestern Yeast Co. v. Broutin, 6 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 628, the nature of the action for recovery und......
-
Robertson v. Miller
... ... breach of a commercial contract is a debt as in Re ... Frederick L. Grant Shoe Co., 130 F. 881, 66 C.C.A. 78 ... This court held that a claim for damages against ... ...
-
In re Mullings Clothing Co.
... ... of the statute, and is provable in bankruptcy. This court so ... held in Re Frederick L. Grant Shoe Co., 130 F. 881, ... 66 C.C.A. 78 (1904), and in Re Stern, 116 F. 604, 54 ... ...