In re Romanow
| Decision Date | 10 March 1899 |
| Docket Number | 654. |
| Citation | 92 F. 510 |
| Parties | In re ROMANOW et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Sumner H. Foster, for petitioning creditors.
A. S Cohen, for respondents.
This case raises several interesting questions concerning the right of certain alleged creditors of the respondents to file a petition in involuntary bankruptcy against them. The act of bankruptcy alleged is a general assignment made October 4 1898. One or more of the petitioners assented to this assignment, and the respondents object that persons so assenting cannot be parties to the petition. The objection is valid. By accepting the assignment, the creditors released their claims against the respondents, and, in place thereof accepted claims under the assignment. Though the assignment is an act of bankruptcy, and is avoided by the adjudication yet it is not a void instrument, but only a voidable one. Until the adjudication it is valid, and the assenting creditors are bound by their assent thereto. Hence it follows that, until adjudication, the persons who had assented to the assignment had ceased to be creditors of the respondents. If this argument be thought too technical, then it may be said that those who have become voluntary parties to the assignment, and have thus agreed to a settlement of the respondents' affairs thereunder, cannot equitably repudiate their agreement. This view was taken in the only case, bearing upon the subject which I have been able to find,-- Perry v. Langley, 19 Fed.Cas. 282, 283 (No. 11,006):
'If the proof was that Perry had advised the making of the assignment, or after its execution had expressly given his assent to it, as a creditor of Langley, he would have been precluded from insisting on it as an act of bankruptcy, and could not have maintained a standing in this court as a petitioning creditor.'
The petition was filed January 28, 1899. On February 14th, Breitstein, a creditor of the respondents, appeared and sought to join in the petition. The respondents object that he cannot be counted in making up the necessary number of creditors required by section 59 of the bankrupt act. Paragraph f of that section reads as follows:
'Creditors other than original petitioners may, at any time, enter their appearance, and join in the petition, or file an answer, and be heard in opposition to the prayer of the petitioners.'
Those who are permitted to 'join in' a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Alta Title Co.
...Guterman v. C.D. Parker & Co., 86 F.2d 546, 549 (1st Cir. 1936); Moulton v. Coburn, 131 F. 201, 204 (1st Cir.1904); In re Romanow, 92 F. 510, 512 (D.Mass.1899). 28 Canute S.S. Co. v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Co., supra, 263 U.S. at 248, 44 S.Ct. at 68. 29 See Pianta v. Reich Co., 77 ......
-
In re Caucus Distributors, Inc.
...seemingly contrary to the decision in Robinson later was rendered by the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in In re Romanow. 92 F. 510 (D.Mass.1899). In Romanow, several of the creditors who had filed an involuntary petition had assented to a general assignment, the act of ba......
-
In re MacFarlane Webster Associates
...who had filed claims under an assignment, asked for a reference, and waited over three months before filing the petition); In re Romanow, 92 F. 510 (D.Mass.1899) (by assenting to an assignment, creditors released their claims against the bankrupt and accepted claims under the assignment and......
-
Guterman v. Parker & Co.
...in the petition originally or by intervention." Citing In re Stein (C.C.A.) 105 F. 749; In re Bolognesi (C.C.A.) 223 F. 771, 773; In re Romanow (D.C.) 92 F. 510; In re Mammouth Lumber Co. (D.C.) 109 F. 308; In re Mackey (D.C.) 110 F. 355; In re Plymouth Cordage Co. (C.C.A.) 135 F. 1000; Ste......