Philadelphia Dairy Products Co., Inc. v. Summit Sweets Shoppe, Inc.

Decision Date26 July 1933
Citation167 A. 667
PartiesPHILADELPHIA DAIRY PRODUCTS CO., Inc. v. SUMMIT SWEETS SHOPPE, Inc.
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Distribution of the estate in possession of the receiver, which is insufficient to pay expenses of receivership and allowed claims in full, are payable in the following order of priority and preference: (1) Expenses of administration of receivership; (2) claims of employees for wages due for work performed and services rendered within two months next preceding filing of bill of complaint herein; (3) franchise taxes; (4) municipal taxes; (5) claim of landlord against corporation for not exceeding one year's rent; (6) claims of other preferred creditors; (7) claims of general creditors.

2. Expenses of receivership administration comprehend allowances to receiver and his counsel, master's fees, appraisers' fees, auditors' fees, rent for use and occupation of store premises, claims for merchandise, electricity, and gas, and wage claims of persons employed by receiver, all of which incurred by receiver in conducting the business of the corporation under authority of court order.

Suit by the Philadelphia Dairy Products, Inc., against the Summit Sweets Shoppe, Inc.

Order in accordance with opinion.

Wright, VanderBurgh & McCarthy, of Hackensack, for complainant and receiver.

Dalrymple & Campbell, of Newark, for Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

Arthur E. Dienst, of Newark, for Eric Schultz and others.

John M. Enright, of McDermott, Enright & Carpenter, of Jersey City, for Journal Square Bank Bldg. Co.

I. Harold Meyerson, of Newark, for Albert Pick-Barth Co.

Alexander Raskin (of Raskin & Hornstein), of Jersey City, for Peckman Show Case & Fixture Co.

Hamilton Cross, of Jersey City, for Liquid Carbonic Co. and Dry Kold Refrigerating Co.

Samuel M. Coombs, Jr., of Jersey City, for General Motors Acceptance Corporation.

FALLON, Vice Chancellor.

The matter sub judice is the distribution of the estate of the defendant insolvent corporation in possession of the receiver herein and a determination of priority and preference of claimants.

The receivership estate is insufficient to pay expenses of the administration of the receivership and all allowed claims in full; therefore the expenses of the administration of the receivership must first be paid, next in order will be claims of employees of the defendant for wages due to them for work performed and services rendered within two months next preceding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Lucas v. Manufacturing Lumbermen's Underwriters
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 5 May 1942
    ... ... S. 1939; ... State ex rel. Carwood Realty Co. v. Dinwiddie, 343 ... Mo. 592, 596, 122 S.W.2d ... 133, 55 ... A. L. R. 275; Philadelphia Dairy Products Co. v. Summitt ... Sweets Shoppe, ... 1939; Report of Alfred M. Best & Co., Inc., of September 16, ... 1940, and of May 19, ... ...
  • Supreme Fuel Sales Co. v. Peerless Plush Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • 3 December 1934
    ...J. Eq. 78, 142 A. 312; Franklin Lumber Co. v, Harold Anderson, Inc., 104 N. J. Eq. 306, 145 A. 477; Philadelphia Dairy Products Co. v. Summit Sweets Shoppe, 113 N. J. Eq. 458, 167 A. 667, as is urged by petitioners. All of those cases merely hold that, since the receiver represents the cour......
  • Holly Knitwear, Inc., In re
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court. New Jersey County Court — Probate Division
    • 27 July 1971
    ...489. See also Whitehead v. Whitehead Pottery Co., 115 N.J.Eq. 257, 170 A. 830 (Ch.1937) and Philadelphia Dairy Prod. Co. Inc. v. Summit Sweets Shoppe Inc., 113 N.J.Eq. 458, 167 A. 667 (Ch.1933). Furthermore, the Loft Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:44--165 et seq., does not affect the priority of the wage......
  • Bowes v. U.S.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • 1 March 1940
    ...the discretion of the legislatures to which the States commit the exercise of the power." In Philadelphia Dairy Products Co., Inc., v. Summit Sweets Shoppe, Inc., 113 NJ. Eq. 458, 167 A. 667, the court, among other things, said: "* * * The well-established rule is to pay first the general e......
  • 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