In re Haynes

Decision Date05 August 1903
Citation123 F. 1001
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Vermont
PartiesIn re HAYNES.

Anthony F. Schwenk, for trustee.

James L. Martin, for claimant.

WHEELER, District Judge.

Upon the finding of facts reported by the referee in respect to this claim, which is for $172.05, balance due on account for goods charged as sold, after crediting goods replevied, a rule to show cause was directed to be issued to the claimant and its agents, why the goods so charged for should not be delivered to the trustee; whereupon the claimant and its agents appeared, and for cause showed the replevin suit mentioned, brought within four months of the bankruptcy proceedings against Robert E. Gordon only, who had possession by virtue of a mortgage, whereby the goods of the bankrupt were taken and carried away from his store by the claimant. This did not constitute a preference, but was a taking by legal proceedings, made void by the bankrupt act, if valid at all against the bankrupt, and is without any showing title by the claimant. The claimant and its agents are hereby ordered to return the goods so taken and charged for, and to deliver them forthwith to the trustee, and the claim is thereupon allowed at $172.05, with $656.85 credited for the goods replevied, in all $828.90.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Studebaker Bros. Manufacturing Co. v. Elsey-Hemphill Carriage Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 10, 1910
    ...of S. Ah Mi., D. C. Hawaii, 18 Am. B. R. 138; McElvain v. Hardesty, 169 F. 31; Bank v. Connett, 142 F. 33; In re Hymes, 130 F. 977; In re Haynes, 123 F. 1001; Matter of Weineger & Co., 126 F. 875; Matter of Rudnick & Co., F. 223; Bankruptcy Act, sec. 67. (3) Under the evidence and the provi......
  • In re Briskman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • July 25, 1904
    ...of the bankrupt either in his actual possession or such as may be reduced to possession. In re Breslauer (D.C.) 121 F. 910; In re Haynes (D.C.) 123 F. 1001; In re (D.C.) 113 F. 107; In re Knight (D.C.) 125 F. 35; In re Rodgers, 125 F. 169, 60 C.C.A 567; In re Weinger, Bergman & Co. (D.C.) 1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT