In re Myers

Decision Date19 February 1900
Docket Number433.
Citation99 F. 691
PartiesIn re MYERS et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Indiana

Baker &amp Daniels, for petitioner.

Bamberger & Feibelman, for trustee in bankruptcy.

BAKER District Judge.

On December 18, 1899, Noah E. Myers and Julius L. Charni were adjudged bankrupts by this court on their own petition. On the same day the matter was referred to Henry H. Vinton referee in bankruptcy for the Eight district of Indiana. On December 21, 1899, Henry Campbell was, on the petition of certain creditors, duly appointed receiver of all the estate of the bankrupts, and on the same day said Campbell qualified as such receiver by giving bond and taking the proper oath of office. At the time said Myers and Charni were adjudged bankrupts they had on deposit in the First National Bank of Crawfordsville, Ind., the sum of $777.66, and said bankrupts were then indebted to said bank for borrowed money evidenced by notes not then due in the sum of $5,000. On the 22d day of December, 1899, said bankrupts presented to the First National Bank of Crawfordsville a receipt acknowledging that they had received the sum of $777.66 to be charged to their account, and ordered the said sum of money to be transferred on the books of the bank from the account of Myers and Charni to that of Henry Campbell, receiver. At the first meeting of creditors, on the 4th day of January, 1900, said Campbell receiver, was duly elected trustee in bankruptcy, and said sum of $777.66 was on the 5th day of January, 1900 transferred on the books of the bank from his account as receiver to his account as trustee. On the 4th day of January, 1900, the First National Bank of Crawfordsville, by James E. Evans, its cashier, filed the proof of its claim against said bankrupts in the sum of $5,000, which was duly allowed by the referee. At the meeting when said Campbell was elected trustee of the estate of the bankrupts, the bank voted said $5,000 for said Campbell for trustee, and the vote of said bank did not in any wise affect the result. From the time that the petition in bankruptcy was filed down to the present time the said sum of $777.66 has remained in the possession of the First National Bank of Crawfordsville, and the only change that has been made in the disposition of said sum is the mere bookkeeping change of the amount from the account of Myers and Charni to Campbell as receiver, and from Campbell as receiver to Campbell as trustee.

On the 18th day of January, 1900, the First National Bank of Crawfordsville filed its verified petition with the referee praying that it might be permitted to withdraw and amend the proofs of its claim by stating therein the amount of said deposit due from it to said bankrupts, and deducting the same from the amount of its said claim, and that it be permitted to amend said proofs by stating therein the amount of said debt to said bankrupts, to wit, $777.66, as a set-off against its said claim and demand, and that it be permitted to prove the residue, to wit, $4,222.34, as its claim, and that it be permitted to withhold and deduct said sum of $777.66 from and out of the sum of $3,625.49 then on deposit in the petitioners' bank to the credit and in the name of Henry Campbell, trustee, and that said Campbell, as trustee, be ordered and directed to allow the petitioner to deduct said sum of $777.66 out of the amount of $3,625.49 standing to his credit on the books of the bank. The petition of the bank, verified by its cashier, shows that he was suddenly called upon to make proof of the claim of the bank against the bankrupts' estate, and that in making said proof he forgot and overlooked the fact that the petitioner was indebted to said bankrupts in said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • In re JC Sparks Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 19 Septiembre 1929
    ...2 Lowell 487, 16 N. B. R. 420, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,764; Schuler v. Israel (1887) 120 U. S. 506, 7 S. Ct. 648, 30 L. Ed. 707; In re Myers (1900, D. C.) 99 F. 691; In re Meyer (1901, D. C.) 107 F. 86, 3 N. B. N. Rep. 440; In re Philip Semmer Glass Co. (1905) 67 C. C. A. 551, 135 F. 77 appeal d......
  • In re Dietz
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 10 Enero 1992
    ...all the parties can be placed in the same situation that they would have been in if the error had not occurred." (quoting In re Myers, 99 F. 691, 693 (D.Ind.1900))). And in addition to the language in Meade Tool & Die already cited, supra p. 466, to the effect that amendments to claims are ......
  • In re Strickland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • 26 Febrero 1909
    ... ... the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of ... Hutchinson v. Otis, 190 U.S. 552, 23 Sup.Ct. 778, 47 ... L.Ed. 1179. In the opinion rendered by Mr. Justice Holmes, ... that right was affirmatively established. See, also, In ... re Scott (D.C.) 93 F. 418; In re Myers (D.C.) ... 99 F. 691; In re Wilder (D.C.) 101 F. 104; In re ... Stevens (D.C.) 107 F. 243; In re Swords (D.C.) ... 112 F. 661; In re Tiffany (D.C.) 17 Am.Bankr.Rep ... 296, 147 F. 314; In re Castleberry (D.C.) 16 ... Am.Bankr.Rep. 159, 143 F. 1018; In re Brumbaugh ... (D.C.) 12 Am.Bankr.Rep ... ...
  • In re O'Gara Coal Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 26 Abril 1926
    ...been allowed, as there should be, in the amendment of claims. There are, on this proposition, many District Court decisions. In re Myers (D. C.) 99 F. 691, 693, an Indiana case, District Judge Baker said: "The court undoubtedly possesses the power, in its discretion, and in a proper case, t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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