In re J.B. & J.M. Cornell Co.
Decision Date | 15 November 1912 |
Citation | 201 F. 381 |
Parties | In re J. B. & J. M. CORNELL CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Murray Prentice & Howland, Charles P. Howland, Lemuel Skidmore, and Luke Vincent Lockwood, all of New York City, for the motion.
Russell Lord Tarbox, Van Wyck & Mygatt, Albert T. Scharps, Kiddle Wendell & Margeson, Floyd K. Diefendorf, and Edwin C. Ward all of New York City, opposed.
By order of this court, dated June 9, 1911, it was provided:
'(5) That all claims against the receivers, present or inchoate, of creditors entitled to participation in the purchase price payable under either bid be filed, in writing and duly verified, with William Allen, Esq., referee in this proceeding.
* * * That said referee take proof of the validity, effect, and relative priority in respect of any of the items or assets of each claim so filed, and report the same, with his decision thereon, to this court with convenient speed, with the right in all claimants, including all the bidders, to contest the validity, effect, or relative priority of the claim of any other creditor until final adjudication as defined in said bids. That the receivers' certificates of indebtedness and the bonds of the bankrupt secured by its mortgage to the United States Mortgage & Trust Company, although surrendered to the receivers hereunder, shall be regarded as outstanding for the purpose in the case of the receivers' certificates of enabling the New York Trust Company and Sarah K. Cornell to prove before the referee the claims represented thereby, and in the case of the bonds of enabling the holders of said bonds to prove before the referee the lien of the mortgage securing said bonds and the claims of such bidders to the purchase price payable under their bid if the same had been in cash, and in the case of both sets of bidders for the purpose of enabling them to contest the validity, effect, and relative priority of the claim of any creditor of the receivers; and such certificates of indebtedness and such bonds shall be canceled only upon the final adjudication of such of said claims of creditors as may be filed with the referee as in this order provided, or at the expiration of the time for filing such claims as herein provided if no such claim shall then have been filed. Neither such certificates of indebtedness nor such bonds shall be canceled in the event that a review should be prayed for or appeal taken from this order, nor until the time for praying such review or taking such appeal shall have expired; and in the event that this order should be reversed or should be so modified as to invalidate either bid or either sale in whole or in part, or to provide for the payment of the purchase price of either bid in any manner or upon any other terms than as in said bid contained, then the certificates of indebtedness of the receivers and the bonds of the bankrupt shall be by the receivers returned to the respective persons who shall have surrendered the same, and the rights of the owners thereof both as to principal and interest shall be in all respects revived and restored with the same effect as if said certificates of indebtedness and said bonds had never been surrendered.
Notice pursuant to the order was duly advertised, and was duly given to those entitled thereto.
The special master has made a painstaking inquiry into the merit and priority of claims, and, having reported, motion is now made to confirm that report, and for such other relief as may seem just. Confirmation is opposed by several merchandise creditors.
To understand clearly the somewhat difficult questions presented, it is desirable to follow the proceedings in chronological sequence. It is only in this way that the orders of court can be satisfactorily interpreted. When the bankrupt company was petitioned into bankruptcy, it was engaged in the fabrication of structural steel and iron work. It had long enjoyed a high reputation for efficiency and integrity. Its repute and business were well worth preserving as a good will asset. The petition having been filed March 20, 1909, receivers were appointed by order dated that day and bearing file date two days later.
They duly qualified, and authority was given to continue the business for 60 days.
By petition verified March 24, 1909, the receivers stated to the court as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Sur. Corp. v. Sharpe, 604
...60 F.2d 516; American Engineering Co. v. Metropolitan ByProducts Co., 2 Cir., 280 F. 677; The Wabash, D.C., 279 F. 921; In re J. B. & J. M. Cornell Co., D.C., 201 F. 381; Union Trust Co. v. Southern Sawmills & Lumber Co., 4 Cir., 166 F. 193, 92 C.C.A. 101; International Trust Co. v. Decker ......
-
Cox v. Snow
... ... 34; Lake v ... Mudgett, 252 F. 365, 164 C. C. A. 289; In re J. B. & ... J. M. Cornell, 201 F. 381; Pusey & Jones v ... Pennsylvania Paper Mills, 173 F. 634; Union Trust ... Co. v ... ...
-
Village of Stillwater v. Hudson Valley Ry. Co.
...for the sake of the public the railroad or public utility must be kept in operation and maintained as a going concern. Matter of Cornell Co. (D. C.) 201 F. 381, 388. This is also, in most instances, beneficial to the mortgagee. Money and supplies are necessary to accomplish this purpose, an......
-
In re Standard Gas & Electric Co.
...D.C., 185 F. 542; In re Sale of Assets of First Nat. Bank of Florence, D.C., 6 F.2d 905; In re J. B. & J. M. Cornell Co., D.C., 186 F. 859, 201 F. 381; In re Prudential Outfitting Co., D.C., 250 F. 504. See Gerdes on Corporate Reorganizations, Sec. 1038. Under Section 77 of the Railroad Reo......