In re Marshall E. Smith & Bro.

Decision Date01 August 1940
Docket NumberNo. 20746.,20746.
Citation35 F. Supp. 56
PartiesIn re MARSHALL E. SMITH & BRO., Inc.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

Benjamin H. Hellman, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner-claimant.

Edward Cohen, Maurice A. Granatoor and Wexler & Weisman, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for trustee.

BARD, District Judge.

This case arises on a petition for review of an order of the Referee denying priorities to petitioners' wage claims and allowing them as general claims only.

The bankrupt had been in business for many years. In 1931, operations being unprofitable and the indebtedness large, the enterprise was turned over to Moskowitz & Herbach, who received an assignment of the stock of the Company. The claimants herein, Frank Houghkirk, Ludwig O. Liese and Samuel S. Polin, had been employees of the bankrupt both prior and subsequent to this transfer. In October, 1934, Moskowitz & Herbach, finding their operation unsuccessful, turned the business and its assets over to the claimants who received, without giving any consideration therefor, the entire issued outstanding stock, as follows: To Houghkirk, 40%; to Liese, 20%; and to Polin, 40%. These three operated the business until December 28, 1938, when the landlord distrained for rent. On January 5, 1939, the corporation made an assignment for the benefit of its creditors at which time the claimants signed the following writing:

"January 5, 1939

"We and each of us, being the Stock-holders, Officers and Directors of the Marshall E. Smith & Bro. Inc., for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, do hereby for ourselves, our heirs, executive (sic), administrators and assigns, waive any and all claim or claims for any preference, for wages or salary which may be due us or any of us, and do further agree that our claims for such wages or salary shall be subordinated to the claims of all Creditors.

"(Signed) "Frank Houghkirk, Pres "Ludwig O. Liese, Vice Pres "Samuel Polin, Treas.

"Witness:

"Margaret M. Deverey "1011 E. Tioga Street "Philadelphia, Penna."

On January 12, 1939, a petition for an arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq., was filed, which was followed on April 1, 1939, by an adjudication in Bankruptcy.

On April 26, 1939, petitioners filed their claims for wages earned within three months of bankruptcy, in the respective sums of $557 (Houghkirk), $623 (Liese) and $438 (Polin), alleging rights to priority under Section 64, sub. a(2), 11 U.S.C.A. § 104, sub. a(2), which provides: "The debts to have priority, in advance of the payment of dividends to creditors, and to be paid in full out of bankrupt estates, and the order of payment, shall be * * * wages, not to exceed $600 to each claimant, which have been earned within three months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding, due to workmen, servants, clerks, or traveling or city salesmen on salary or commission basis, whole or part time, whether or not selling exclusively for the bankrupt; * * *."

To these claims for priorities the Trustee filed his objections averring (1) that claimants were not such wage earners as would be entitled to priorities under the Act and (2) that they had waived any priorities which they might have possessed. As previously noted, the Referee sustained the Trustee's objections and disallowed the claims for priorities.

From the testimony adduced before the Referee and the inferences which fairly may be drawn therefrom, it appears that although the claimants devoted a great deal of their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • In re Ko-Ed Tavern, 7947.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 14, 1942
    ...been held that persons who are the owners of a bankrupt corporation cannot assert priority of payment for wages. In re Marshall E. Smith & Bro., 35 F.Supp. 56, 57 (E.D.Pa.). In the instant case the appellant's assignor was a part owner of the bankrupt corporation and the claim he made for w......
  • In re Comtec Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 3, 1988
    ...In re Bush Terminal Printing Corp., 32 F.2d 264, 265 (2d Cir.1929); Blessing, supra, 223 F.2d at 37; In re Marshall E. Smith & Bros., Inc., 35 F.Supp. 56, 57 (E.D.Pa.1940); Lawsam Electric, supra, 300 F. at 736; and In re Industrial Car Manufacturing Co., 1 B.R. 339, 345-46 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1......
  • Matter of Dahlman Truck Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • March 31, 1986
    ...of establishing a priority under section 507(a)(3), see Missionary Baptist Foundation, supra 12 B.R. at 571; In Re Marshall E. Smith & Bro. Inc., 35 F.Supp. 56, 57 (1940), and since the facts alleged on this issue are insufficient, the court must decline to find an employer-employee relatio......
  • In re Public Ledger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • November 19, 1945
    ...sense conclusive thereof. Claimants seeking priority under the Act must clearly establish their rights thereto. In re Marshall E. Smith & Bros., Inc., D.C., 35 F.Supp. 56, 57. To broaden the purview of the Act so as here to include severance pay as wages would be an extension thereof not wa......

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