In re Russell

Decision Date11 September 1899
Citation97 F. 32
PartiesIn re RUSSELL.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

SHIRAS, District Judge.

The petition originally filed avers that John L. Russell and John F. Offel were partners under name of Russell & Offel, and prays that the firm be adjudged to be bankrupt, but does not ask that either partner be adjudged to be bankrupt. I find no amendment to the petition in these particulars. The petition is signed by Russell alone. No appearance was entered by Offel. On April 28, 1899, John L. Russell was individually adjudged to be bankrupt. The petition for discharge prays that Russell be granted a discharge from all debts provable against his estate, but does not refer to the partnership debts in any form. As there was no notice given to Offel, the firm could not be adjudged to be bankrupt. Gen. Orders No. 8 (32 C.C.A. xi., 89 F. vi.). The petition does not pray for an adjudication of Russell as an individual, and there is no foundation in the record for the adjudication that was entered. The adjudication entered is set aside, and the case is again sent to the referee for further proceedings. The petitioner should amend his petition. If it is proposed to have the firm adjudged bankrupt, as well as the partners, the petition should so show, and notice of the proceedings, under Gen. Orders No. 8, must be given to Offel unless he voluntarily joins in the proceeding. If it is not proposed to adjudicate the firm, the petition must show that Russell was a member of the firm, and must aver that he asks a discharge against firm creditors as well as individual creditors; and this fact must be set forth in the notice given to creditors of first meeting, also in the petition for discharge and in the notice to creditors thereof. The safer plan is to give notice to Offel to have the firm adjudged bankrupt.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Bertenshaw
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 19, 1907
    ... ... Am.Bankr.Rep. 283, 287; In re Sanderlin (D.C.) 109 ... F. 857, 859; In re Meyer, 98 F. 976, 979, 39 C.C.A ... 368, 371; Strause v. Hooper (D.C.) 105 F. 590; ... In re Farley (D.C.) 115 F. 359, 361; In re ... Meyers (D.C.) 96 F. 408; Id., 97 F. 757; In re ... Russell (D.C.) 97 F. 32; Green River Deposit Bank v ... Craig (D.C.) 110 F. 137; In re McFaun (D.C.) 96 ... F. 592; In re Barden (D.C.) 101 F. 553; In re ... Hale (D.C.) 107 F. 432 ... There ... are many decisions that a partnership is not insolvent within ... the meaning of the ... ...
  • Young v. Stevenson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1905
    ...a total lack of evidence to support it. 36 Ark. 260; 40 Ark. 144; 60 Ark. 250. The judgment was covered by the discharge. 96 F. 589, 592; 97 F. 32, 757. MCCULLOCH, J. This is an appeal from a judgment quashing a writ of execution sued out by appellant against appellee on a judgment rendered......
  • In re Mercur
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • July 16, 1902
    ... ... firm obligations, and (by some courts) that the proceedings ... against the partnership and the individual member are ... distinct cases in which separate fees must be ... [116 F. 659] ... paid. In re Meyers, 2 Am.Bankr.R. 707, 96 F. 408; ... Id., 3 Am.Bankr.R. 26 97 F. 757; In re Russell, 3 ... Am.Bankr.R. 91, 97 F. 32; In re Meyer, 39 ... C.C.A. 368, 98 F. 976; Bank v. Craig (D.C.) 110 F ... 137; In re Farley (D.C.) 115 F. 359; In re ... Barden (D.C.) 101 F. 553; In re Hale, 6 ... Am.Bankr.R. 35, 107 F. 432; In re Sanderlin, 6 ... Am.Bankr.R. 384, 109 F. 857; In re Winkens, ... ...
  • Thompson v. First National Bank of Jackson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1904
    ... ... a preference this is a condition precedent. Vacaro v ... Bank, 103 F. 441; In re Blair, 99 F. 76; In ... re Meyer, 98 F. 976 ... Barman ... is not entitled to a discharge from the firm debts. In re ... Meyers, 97 F. 411; s.c., 97 F. 757; In re ... Russell, 97 F. 32; Is re Meyers, 98 F. 976; In re Hale ... 107 F. 432 ... Upon ... the whole case and all the proof taken, the judgment is ... clearly correct, and should be affirmed, although the ... demurrer to the second amended bill was improperly sustained ... Railroad Co. v. Adams, ... ...
  • 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