In re Ostrom
| Decision Date | 10 March 1911 |
| Citation | 185 F. 988 |
| Parties | In re OSTROM et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
A. E Boyesen, for trustee.
Charles Loring, pro se.
This is a review of an order of the referee disallowing the claim of Charles Loring for $2,219.
The claim was based upon the following facts: John Peek brought suit against the bankrupts to recover damages for personal injuries. The table of dates relating to that suit is as follows:
June 20, 1908, verdict for $2,000.
December 19, 1908, order for judgment in favor of defendants notwithstanding the verdict.
April 30, 1909, this order reversed by the Supreme Court, and the verdict reinstated.
May 8 1909, leave given to defendants to move for a new trial.
June 20, 1909, petition in bankruptcy filed against the defendants.
August 13, 1909, motion of defendants for new trial denied.
October 15, 1909, judgment entered in favor of Peek for $2,219.
November 3, 1909, defendants adjudicated bankrupts.
The judgment was afterwards assigned by Peek to Loring.
If this claim can be allowed at all, it must be under subdivision 1 of section 63 of the bankrupt act, which is as follows:
'A fixed liability, as evidenced by a judgment or an instrument in writing, absolutely owing at the time of the filing of the petition against him, whether then payable or not. ' Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 562 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3447).
It is admitted that the claim for personal injuries as it existed before the verdict was not provable or allowable; but it is said that, when the verdict was rendered, the liability became fixed, and it then became provable and allowable.
In the case of Black v. McClelland, Fed. Cas. No. 1,462, it appeared that a verdict was rendered against McClelland in favor of Black on January 12, 1875, for damages for injuries done by McClelland to Black in punching out his eye with an umbrella. McClelland was adjudicated a bankrupt on March 20, 1875; a judgment was entered upon the verdict above mentioned on May 6, 1875; and on August 11, 1875, Black made application to the judge of the United States District Court for permission to have process issued on the judgment rendered in the state court, on the ground that the verdict was not a debt provable in bankruptcy, and consequently the proceeding in bankruptcy would not discharge it. This application was granted by the District Court. The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, where the order was affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coclin Tobacco Co. v. Griswold, 7057.
...of a verdict, while liquidating a claim, does not result in merger and therefore is not provable in bankruptcy. See, e. g., In re Ostrom, 185 F. 988 (D.Minn.1911); Matter of Eads, 17 F. 813 (D.Wash.1926). When the requirement of § 63(a) (1) is viewed in that light, we believe it clear that ......
-
In re Eads
...Stat. 1921; In re Frederick L. Grant Shoe Co. (C. C. A.) 130 F. 881; 26 R. C. L. p. 735. Alleged bankrupts cite: In re Ostrom et al. (D. C.) 185 F. 988, 26 Am. Bankr. Rep. 273; Jefferson Transfer Co. v. Hull, 166 Wis. 438, 166 N. W. 1, 40 Am. Bankr. Rep. 844; Moore v. Douglas (C. C. A.) 230......
-
Buttrick v. Gardner
...In re Crescent Lumber Co., 154 F. 724, 19 Am. B. R. 112; In re New York Tunnel Co., 159 F. 688, 86 C. C. A. 556, 20 Am. B. R. 25; In re Ostrom, 185 F. 988, 26 Am. B. R. 273; In re Rockaway Soda Water Mfg. Co. (F.) 36 Am. B. R. 640. In re Kroeger Brothers Co., 262 F. 463, 45 Am. B. R. 135; E......
-
Marotta v. American Surety Co. of New York
...as necessary to constitute a provable claim; Collier on Bankruptcy (13th Ed.) p. 1387; Black v. McClelland, Fed. Cas. No. 1462; In re Ostrom (D. C.) 185 F. 988; since a verdict is not conclusive. A motion to set aside a verdict, though based on excessive damages alone, may be granted unless......