In re Rosenfeld-Goldman Co.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1915 |
| Docket Number | 20795. |
| Citation | 228 F. 921 |
| Parties | In re ROSENFELD-GOLDMAN CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Philip Rubenstein, of Boston, Mass., for creditors.
Thayer Smith & Gaskill and Webster Thayer, all of Worcester, Mass for trustee.
This is a review taken by certain creditors from action by the referee in reference to the choice of a trustee.
At the first meeting on July 2, 1914, it became evident before the voting for the trustee began that a contest was imminent. Thereupon a request was made that the meeting stand continued for a few hours in order that proofs of claims of the Worcester Trust Company and of the Globe Manufacturing Company might be presented and allowed. The referee granted the postponement requested against the protest of these objecting creditors. Their counsel thereupon stated that objection would be made to the allowance of the claims referred to on the ground that preferences had been received by the claimants, and that he was unprepared to go on with evidence at that time, and he asked for a continuance of the meeting until July 30th, that hearings might be held in the meantime and evidence taken upon the question of the allowance of these claims. This was agreed to, and the meeting was adjourned accordingly. The claim of the Globe Manufacturing Company was filed on July 2d, and that of the Trust Company on July 14th. Hearings on them were held from time to time.
The referee treated these creditors as having the right to be heard upon their objections to the allowance of the claims in question, and postponed the choice of a trustee until the validity of the objections could be determined. He allowed the claim of the Trust Company, and did not find it necessary to pass on the claim of the Globe Manufacturing Company. Accordingly the claim of the Trust Company was voted at the adjourned meeting on July 30th. It created a tie, a majority in number of creditors voting for one Whiting, and a majority in value voting for one Tatman. The claim of the Globe Manufacturing Company would have been voted the same way as that of the Worcester Trust Company. The allowance of it would not, therefore, have affected the result; and this was the reason why no decision as to it was made by the referee. As the voting was a tie between number and amount, the referee appointed Mr. Tatman, who had previously been receiver, trustee.
The objecting creditors contend that the referee erred, first, in continuing the meeting in order to allow the claims of the Worcester Trust Company and of the Globe Manufacturing Company to be presented and allowed; second, in allowing the claim of the Trust Company to be voted; third, in not passing upon the claim of the Globe Manufacturing Company; fourth, in not declaring Whiting elected trustee; and, fifth, in not ruling that Mr. Tatman was disqualified, because he was controlled by the bankrupt, or by one Wolfson, as preferred creditor. As to the last objection: The referee reports that at one of the hearings before him counsel for these creditors stated that he had no criticism to make of the qualifications of Mr. Tatman for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Vance, Bankruptcy No. 89-04050-W.
...officer, 3 Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1978) ¶ 55.02 pp. 13-14 citing In re Knox, 221 F. 36 (6th Circ.1915), In re Rosenfeld-Goldman Co., 228 F. 921 (D.C.Mass.1915), In re Nice and Schreiber, 123 F. 987 (D.C.Pa.1903) and see In re McGill, 106 F. 57 (6th Circ.1901), In re Bryant, 188 F. ......
-
Schwartz v. Mills
...meetings, we think the better rule is that no error will lie if there was reasonable ground for the allowance. See In re Rosenfeld-Goldman Co., D.C.Mass., 228 F. 921. Hence a Proof of Claim should be held to comply with the requirement for statement of the consideration if the creditors and......
-
In re Ira Haupt & Co.
...the claim, In re Pan-American Match Co., 242 F. 995 (D.Mass.1917), or proceed to a hearing on the objection, e. g., In re Rosenfeld-Goldman Co., 228 F. 921 (D.Mass.1915) but may not ignore the objection and allow the claim, In re Malino, 118 F. 368 (S.D.N.Y.1902). While he may order a conti......
-
In re Deena Woolen Mills
...and to approve or disapprove the appointment depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. As stated In Matter of Rosenfeld-Goldman, D.C., 228 F. 921, at page 923: "The actual administration of bankrupt estates is, under the present law, left largely to the Referees. It is the se......