In re Wm. H. Blumer & Co.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1882 |
| Citation | 13 F. 622 |
| Parties | In re WM. H. BLUMER & CO., Bankrupts. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
The testimony before the register was to the effect that after the firm of W. H. Blumer & Co. had failed, and while they were endeavoring to settle with their creditors, but before any suits had been brought or the bankruptcy proceedings commenced, Mr. Knauss, who was the holder of a certificate of deposit for $1,575, issued by said firm in the course of their business as bankers, called at the place of business of the firm, and saw Jesse M. Line, one of the partners, who assured him that the claims would all be paid. Two days afterwards Knauss called, with the following guaranty indorsed on the certificate, viz., 'I guaranty the payment of the within certificate,' and asked Mr. Line to sign it, which the latter did. Subsequently bankruptcy proceedings were commenced against the firm, under which they were adjudicated bankrupts. Mr. Knauss then made claim against the separate estate of Jesse M. Line upon the guaranty. The register (Edwin T. Chase) was of opinion that there was no consideration for the guaranty, and disallowed the claim. Exceptions were filed to this ruling.
W. H. Sowden, for exceptant.
John Rupp, for other creditors.
This exception must be dismissed. Mr. Line's indorsement on the certificate was without any legal effect. It was in terms a guaranty of his own debt. As a member of the firm which issued the certificate, he was liable to be called upon individually to pay it, and his guaranty was therefore unmeaning. The creditor obtained no additional obligation whatever, and has no right to participate in the distribution of the debtor's individual estate at this time.
---------
Notes:
[1] Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Mahoney
...Bank neither added to its strength nor increased his liability, nor entitled the bank to a preference in his individual assets. In re Blumer, 13 F. 622; Fayette v. 79 Ky. 133. In any event, taking the note most strongly in favor of the bank, it gave it simply the right to elect against whic......
-
Muth v. Goddard
...executed on his behalf imposed upon him no additional obligations whatever, as it was in terms a guaranty of his own debt. In re Wm. H. Blumer & Co. (D. C.) 13 F. 622. The question, then, is, Charles A. Clarke had the right as attorney in fact to secure the payment of the notes in question,......
- United States v. Hunnewell