In re Rothenberg
| Decision Date | 02 November 1905 |
| Citation | 140 F. 798 |
| Parties | In re ROTHENBERG. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Charles L. Greenhall, for bankrupt.
Leonard Bronner, for petitioning creditors.
This is a demurrer to an involuntary petition. The question involved is whether the owner of a note not yet due, indorsed by the alleged bankrupt, holds a provable debt, upon which he could join in a petition. It is claimed that this is a contingent liability, and not a provable debt, within the meaning of section 59 (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 561 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3445)). I think that it is a debt which is technically provable, but which cannot be allowed until, upon the maturity of the note, the liability of the indorser is fixed. This was originally the English practice, and substantially the practice under the act of 1867. Lowell on Bankruptcy, Sec. 168. It is the practice under the present act. Re Gerson, 5 Am.Bankr.Rep. 89, 105 F. 891; Id., 6 Am.Bankr.R. 11, 107 F. 897, 47 C.C.A. 49; Re Hornstein (D.C.) 122 F. 266. Under the act of 1867 the holder of such a contingent claim could not be a petitioning creditor. Lowell on Bankruptcy, Sec. 168. But I think under the present act the simple test is whether the claim is a provable claim. The fact that it is not yet allowable is immaterial.
Demurrer overruled, with leave to answer in five days on payment of costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maynard v. Elliott Varney v. Same Smith v. Same Rutherford v. Same
...Circuit, Colman Co. v. Withoft, supra, page 253 of 195 F., and by the District Courts generally. In re O'Donnell, 131 F. 150; In re Rothenberg, 140 F. 798; In re Smith, 146 F. 923: In re Dunlap Carpet Co., 163 F. 541; In re Caloris Mfg. Co., 179 F. 722; In re Buzzini, 183 F. 827; In re Lyon......
-
In re Smith
... ... the Supreme Court been of the opinion that, upon a proper ... construction of section 63, all claims which had been ... contingent at the time of filing the petition were excluded ... from allowance, though no longer contingent at the date of ... proof. See, also, In re Rothenberg (D.C.) 140 F ... 798; Collier on Bankruptcy (5th Ed.) pp. 484, 489 ... But, ... aside from authority and upon an independent reading of ... section 63, I am of the opinion that neither grammatical nor ... logical reasons require that subdivisions 4 shall be limited ... by ... ...
-
In re Myers
...Under the Act prior to this amendment, such a claim was provable and such a creditor could join in an involuntary petition. In re Rothenberg, D.C., 140 F. 798. A petitioning creditor holding a security may waive the security and file her claim in the full amount. Morrison v. Rieman, 7 Cir.,......
-
Kay v. Federal Rubber Co., 4526.
...trade acceptances were not payable until a future date, is immaterial. A claim to be provable need not be presently allowable. In re Rothenberg (D. C.) 140 F. 798; In re McGowan (D. C.) 134 F. 498, 14 A. B. R. 209. It is only necessary in this case that the holder may prove his claim after ......