Walker v. Woodside
| Decision Date | 05 October 1908 |
| Docket Number | 1,602. |
| Citation | 164 F. 680 |
| Parties | WALKER v. WOODSIDE et al. [1] In re WALKER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
G. H Whipple and Chickering & Gregory, for petitioner.
Daniel o'Connell, Bert Schlesinger, Henry G. W. Dinkelspiel, and S. C. Wright, for respondents.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
This also is a petition for the revision, under section 24b of the bankrupt act of 1898 (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 553 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3432)), of certain orders of the District Court for the Northern District of California submitted with the cases of Brown v. Major, 164 F 673, and Bartnett v. Major, 164 F. 679, just disposed of, and growing out of similar transactions.
In this case of Walker, the petitioner here seeks the review of the action of the District Court in denying his motion to dismiss the amended original petition filed by Alexander J. Woodside E. A. Groezinger, and E. O. Schraubstadter, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of A. Finke's Widow, Crowley Launch & Tugboat Company, a corporation, Thomas Crowley, C. D. Freiderichs, and H. H. Clark, for the adjudging of Walker an involuntary bankrupt, and also of an order of the District Court overruling a demurrer filed by him to that petition, and also the revision of an order overruling a motion made by the alleged bankrupt for the dismissal of the petition and amended petition in intervention filed in the said involuntary bankruptcy proceedings by Frieda R. Major, Kate A. O'Connell, as administratrix of the estate of George P. O'Connell, and of an order made by the District Court overruling a demurrer filed by the alleged bankrupt to the said amended petition in intervention.
The ground of the motion made for the dismissal of the amended original petition is that it was not properly verified. Assuming that the motion made was a proper method of raising the objection, we think it is without merit. The record shows that the amended petition was signed by all of the then petitioning creditors of the alleged bankrupt, the signature of the Crowley Launch & Tugboat Company being made by its president, with the seal of the corporation attached, and that it was verified by Schraubstadter, one of the members of the firm of A. Finke's Widow, by the president of the Crowley Launch & Tugboat Company on its behalf, and by Thomas Crowley individually, one of the alleged creditors; so that it appears that the requisite number of creditors joined in the verification of the amended original petition. It cannot be doubted that, since a corporation must act through some agent, a verification on its behalf may be legally made by its president. Nor can it be doubted that a member of a partnership may properly verify a claim made on behalf of the firm of which he is a member.
The amended original petition alleges, among other things, that at all the times therein mentioned the California Safe Deposit & Trust Company was, and still is, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, having its principal place of business in the city and county of San Francisco; that within four months of the filing of the petition that company conducted a general banking business, under the laws of the state of California, in connection with its other business therein specified; that the whole amount of its capital stock was and is $3,000,000, divided into 30,000 shares of the par value of $100 each, of which 26,122 shares were issued; that at all the times mentioned in the petition Walker was, and still is, the holder of 800 of those shares; that the petitioners are creditors of the said Walker, having provable claims against him amounting, in the aggregate, in excess of securities held by them, to the sum of $1,052.35, the nature and amount of which claims are specifically stated in the petition, and consist of various deposits of money made in the said California Safe Deposit & Trust Company by the respective petitioning creditors at various times during the two years immediately preceding the filing of the petition, such deposits by Woodside aggregating $8,300; by Groezinger and Schraubstadter, as copartners under the firm name of A. Finke's Widow, $5,222.25; by the Crowley Launch & Tugboat Company, $5,080; by Thomas Crowley, $1,690; by Friedrichs, $3,900; and by Clark, $8,000-- all of which moneys the amended original petition alleges have ever since been due and owing to the respective depositors by said bank, and for his proportion thereof, aggregating $1,052.35, the alleged bankrupt has at all times been, and still is, liable to said respective depositors.
The amended original petition further alleges that the said California Safe Deposit & Trust Company is insolvent and unable to pay its debts and liabilities, and that, within four months immediately preceding the date of and the filing of the said petition--
'the said respondent David F. Walker committed an act of bankruptcy, in that he did heretofore, to wit, on the 26th day of November, 1907, in the city and county of San Francisco, state and district aforesaid, transfer and convey to his wife, Althea Walker, a large portion of his property hereinafter described, with the intent then and there to defraud, hinder, and delay his creditors.
'That the said property transferred and conveyed as aforesaid is situate, lying, and being in the city and county of San Francisco, state and district aforesaid, and is particularly described as follows, to wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erickson v. Richardson, 7885.
...by the law of the state of California, the appellant's position cannot be sustained. This court, in 1908, in the case of Walker v. Woodside, 164 F. 680, 683, has determined the character of the stockholder's liability under California law, with reference to its character as a "debt" permitt......
-
Hovland v. Farmers State Bank
...Havens (C. C. A. 2) 255 F. 478, 481, 166 C. C. A. 554; In re Haff (C. C. A. 2) 136 F. 78, 80, 68 C. C. A. 646; Walker v. Woodside (C. C. A. 9) 164 F. 680, 685, 90 C. C. A. 644; In re Brown Commercial Car Co. (C. C. A. 7) 227 F. 387, 390, 142 C. C. A. 83; In re Pure Milk Co. (D. C. Ala.) 154......
-
In re Bokum Resources Corp.
...since a corporation must act through some agent, a verification on its behalf may be legally made by its president." Walker v. Woodside, 164 F. 680, 681 (9th Cir.1908). Indeed, verification by any authorized agent is sufficient, and the agent's authority "does not need to be in writing if, ......
-
National Refining Co. v. Pennsylvania Petroleum Co., 9691.
...283 F. 108; In re Condon (C. C. A. 2) 209 F. 800; In re Havens (C. C. A. 2) 255 F. 478; In re Haff (C. C. A. 9) 136 F. 78; Walker v. Woodside (C. C. A. 9) 164 F. 680; In re Interstate Oil Corp. (C. C. A. 9) 63 F. (2d) 674, 675; In re Brown Commercial Car Co. (C. C. A. 7) 227 F. As said by t......