In re Woulfe & Co.

Decision Date18 December 1916
Docket Number2925.
Citation239 F. 128
PartiesIn re WOULFE & CO. v. GOODWIN et al. WILLIAM CAMERON & CO., Inc.,
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

On Petition for Rehearing, January 19, 1917.

W. M Sleeper and Chas. A. Boynton, both of Waco, Tex., for petitioners.

Albert Boggess, of Waco, Tex., opposed.

The following is the order of Maxey, District Judge:

Whereas on July 9, 1915, before T. F. Bryan, referee in bankruptcy for the Waco division of said court, there was a hearing to establish the allowance of claims entitled to priority of payment out of said estate. And whereas, at said hearing it was ordered by the said referee that the claims entitled to priority be allowed and ordered paid by the trustee in the following order to the extent of the funds now in the said trustee's hands, to wit: (1) All taxes due; (2) cost of preserving estate subsequent to the filing of petition; (3) all costs of administration; (4) wages due clerks for three months immediately prior to the filing of petition; (5) to the landlord for all rents accrued prior to filing of petition and all rents to accrue up to the 1st of November 1915, the end of the current rental year at a rental of $350 per month; and (6) to the secured creditor proceeds of the furniture and fixtures of bankrupt. And whereas, on the 15th day of July, 1915, William Cameron & Company, Incorporated, being the landlord creditor in said proceedings, being dissatisfied with the said order of the referee, filed a petition for review, which petition was granted and filed in this court together with said referee's certificate of review on the 16th day of August, 1915. And whereas, on the 16th day of November, A.D. 1915, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, came on to be heard the said petition filed by Wm. Cameron & Co., Incorporated, attorneys appearing respectively in behalf of said wage-earners and in behalf of the said landlord; and the court after hearing the argument of counsel, being of the opinion that the said order of the referee made on July 9, 1915, should be in all things affirmed.

It is therefore ordered by this court that said order of referee entered on July 9, 1915, be and the same is hereby in all things affirmed, and that the order of the payment of said claims entitled to priority stand and be paid by the trustee as follows: (1) All taxes due; (2) costs of preserving estate subsequent to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Brannon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 20 Febrero 1933
    ...Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 189 S. W. 1018; Security Trust Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Com. App.) 208 S. W. 892. So far as our decision in Re Woulfe & Co., 239 F. 128, is to the contrary it is Landlords by article 5238 have a lien on all property of the tenant on the rented premises for rent due or to be......
  • In re Brannon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone
    • 4 Noviembre 1931
    ...view are: Oliver v. United States, 268 U. S. 1, 45 S. Ct. 386, 69 L. Ed. 817; Manly v. Hood (C. C. A.) 37 F.(2d) 212; Cameron & Co. v. Goodwin, 239 F. 128 (C. C. A. 5); City of Dallas v. Menezes (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 779; Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 224 U. S. ......
  • O'Brien v. Rockefeller
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 6 Febrero 1917

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