In re Stone
| Decision Date | 03 July 1913 |
| Docket Number | 4,854. |
| Citation | 206 F. 356 |
| Parties | In re STONE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Alfred Aarons and Bernard Harris, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for alleged bankrupt.
Harry S. Mesirov, and Frederick S. Drake, both of Philadelphia Pa., for petitioners.
The present application by the alleged bankrupt is based upon the ground that the petition shows upon its face that it is filed by but one petitioning creditor, to wit, the York Manufacturing Company, and contains no allegations that the creditors are less than 12 in number as required by section 59b of the Bankruptcy Act. The creditors joining in the petition are the York Manufacturing Company, Paul Gilbert and Harry Bromberg. The petition sets out that the petitioners are creditors having provable claims in excess of $500. It is alleged that the claim of the York Manufacturing Company is for goods sold and delivered by that company on or about the 2d day of April, 1913, to the alleged bankrupt at the agreed price and value of $411.72; that the claim of Gilbert is for goods sold and delivered on the 9th and 14th days of May, 1913, by the York Manufacturing Company to the alleged bankrupt at the agreed price and value of $219.42 which claim the York Manufacturing Company thereafter and before the filing of the petition for value assigned to Gilbert; that the claim of the petitioner Bromberg is for goods sold and delivered on May 17, 1913, by the York Manufacturing Company to the alleged bankrupt at the agreed price and value of $258.30, which claim the York Manufacturing Company thereafter and before the filing of the petition for value assigned to Bromberg.
The acts of bankruptcy alleged are: (1) That at various times in the months of May and June, 1913, Stone, while insolvent, transferred property belonging to him consisting of cash to certain of his creditors whose names are now unknown to the petitioners in excess of $5,000 with intent to prefer said creditors over other creditors of the said Stone of the same class; and (2) that, within four months preceding the filing of the petition, Stone transferred and concealed certain of his property consisting of quantities of merchandise located at his place of business at No. 415 Market street, Philadelphia, with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors. While the petition to expunge does not raise objections to the allegations of the act of bankruptcy, objections were urged by counsel at the argument, and it is apparent that the petition in bankruptcy is not sufficiently specific as to the alleged acts of bankruptcy to conform to the rulings of this and other courts. In re Cliffe (D.C.) 94 F. 354; In re White (D.C.) 135 F. 199; In re Hark et al. (D.C.) 135 F. 603; In re Pressed Steel Co. (D.C.) 27 Am.Bankr.Rep. 44, 193 F. 811; Conway v. German, 166 F. 67, 91 C.C.A. 653; In re Nelson (D.C.) 98 F. 76; In re Blumberg (D.C.) 133 F. 845; In re Lackow (D.C.) 140 F. 573.
The objection that it is apparent on the face of the petition in bankruptcy that there is but one petitioning creditor is based upon the allegations that Gilbert and Bromberg hold their claims by assignments for value from the York Manufacturing Company. If the allegations as to acts of bankruptcy were sufficiently definite and specific to establish that the acts of bankruptcy were committed after the creation of the indebtedness upon which Gilbert and Bromberg claim by assignment, I think the objection would not avail, as there is nothing upon the record to show that the claims derived from the York Manufacturing Company were split up for the mere purpose of enabling the alleged creditors to become petitioners. The dates of the assignments to Gilbert and Bromberg are not set out, but, assuming that the status of Gilbert and Bromberg as creditors relates back to the dates of the creation of the debts, we have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial