In re Harbor Stores Corporation
| Decision Date | 24 April 1940 |
| Citation | 33 F. Supp. 360 |
| Parties | In re HARBOR STORES CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Milbank, Tweed & Hope, of New York City (Carleton H. Endemann, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner on review Curacao Trading Co., Inc.
April & Eisenrod, of New York City (Nathan April, of New York City, of counsel), for trustees.
Scribner & Miller, of New York City (Julius J. Rosenberg, of New York City, of counsel), for Clinton Trust Co.
This is a petition by Curacao Trading Company, Inc., to review an order of the Referee, dated April 2, 1940 denying petitioner's motion to resettle nunc pro tunc an order made in this proceeding under date of August 8, 1939.
The order of August 8, 1939 was a final order made in an omnibus reclamation proceeding and it dismissed the petitions for reclamation of six of the claimants in the proceeding. An appeal from the order was taken by one of the claimants, Clinton Trust Company, and the order was subsequently affirmed by this court. See Matter of Harbor Stores Corporation, D.C., 29 F. Supp. 749.
Assertedly the motion to resettle is brought under the authority of Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, providing that clerical mistakes and errors arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time, which rules have been made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by General Order No. 37, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. The petitioner does not seek to change in any way that part of the order which dismisses its petition for reclamation, but rather to amend the recitals in the order which recite the Referee's determination that at the time of the adjudication in bankruptcy petitioner was not the owner nor entitled to the possession of the property forming the subject of the claim and that neither the receivers nor their successor trustees ever came into possession of any such property owned by the claimants in which the petitioner has any right, title or interest. The petitioner now seeks to have these determinations or recitals amended so as to provide in substance that it has been decided that Curacao Trading Company, Inc., has no right, title or interest in such property equal to or superior to that of the successful claimants, and that its petition for reclamation is dismissed.
On April 3, 1939 petitioner, Curacao Trading Company, Inc., advanced $90,500 to Garcia Sugars Corporation and as security received three warehouse receipts of the Harbor Stores Corporation, the bankrupt, which conducted a public warehouse. The receipts purported to cover bags of cocoa beans. Petitioner took out insurance on the cocoa beans. On May 29, 1939 Harbor Stores Corporation was adjudicated a bankrupt and it then appeared that these warehouse receipts had been fraudulently issued, although peti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Henry v. Britt
...R. 60(a) may be made in the lower court after appeal: Rigopoulos v. Kervan (S.D.N.Y.1943), 53 F.Supp. 829, * * * In re Harbor Stores Corp. (S.D.N.Y.1940), 33 F.Supp. 360. * * * For cases indicating that correction under Rule 60(a) cannot be made after appeal see: Home Indemnity Co. of New Y......
-
Curacao Trading Co. v. William Stake & Co.
...was owned by others than the plaintiff, and was awarded to them. In re Harbor Stores Corporation, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 749; Id., D.C., 33 F. Supp. 360. Later, in the action against the insurance company, the plaintiff sought to spell out some kind of an interest in the cocoa covered by the rece......
-
Von Wedel v. McGrath
...F.Supp. 946. But where the legal effect of the affirmance is not to be disturbed, a judgment may be reopened. In re Harbor Stores Corporation, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1940, 33 F.Supp. 360. It would seem to be proper, therefore, to permit an amendment even after dismissal and affirmance on appeal if the......
-
In re Kantor's Delicatessen
...apply to Bankruptcy cases General Order No. 37, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53 in effect February 13, 1939. In re Harbor Stores Corp., D.C., 33 F.Supp. 360, 42 A.B.R.,N.S., 593; Kroell v. New York Ambassador, Inc., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d The sole question is: Was "implied consent" given? From t......