Western, Inc. v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 15470.,15470. |
| Citation | Western, Inc. v. United States, 234 F.2d 211 (8th Cir. 1956) |
| Parties | WESTERN, Inc., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Robert J. Gaddy, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Geo. S. Leonard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry Richards, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., Samuel D. Slade, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order allowing the claim of the Government in the amount of $8,491.55 as a priority claim under a Plan of Reorganization confirmed in a proceeding for the reorganization of Western, Inc.(appellant), under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. A. § 501 et seq.
Appellant contends that the District Court erred in determining that it had assumed the indebtedness of a predecessor partnership known as Banfield Packing Company of Miami, Oklahoma.If there was an adequate evidentiary basis for that determination, the order appealed from must be affirmed, since it is undisputed that the partnership was liable to the Government for subsidy overpayments made to the partnership in 1945 in the amount of $8,491.55.
Originally, Banfield Packing Company of Miami, Oklahoma, commenced business as an Oklahoma corporation organized in January, 1943.It was engaged in the meat packing business at Miami, Oklahoma.In August, 1943, it transferred all of its assets and business to a partnership, of the same name, composed of the stockholders of the corporation with one addition.The partnership continued the same meat packing business at Miami, Oklahoma, from August, 1943, until January 1, 1946, when it transferred its assets and business back to the Banfield Packing Company of Miami, Oklahoma, a corporation.In December, 1948, the stockholders of the corporation, who had been the partners while the business was conducted as a partnership, sold their stock to Harry C. Bass, Jr.For a short time thereafter the corporation continued the business under its original name.On July 1, 1949, its name was changed to Western, Inc.On March 17, 1952, Western, Inc., filed a petition for reorganization in the District Court under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, and on November 28, 1952, the Government filed proof of its claim.The trustee filed objections to the claim.
The issue whether Western, Inc., the debtor corporation, had assumed the indebtedness of the partnership was tried to the court.The contract and bill of sale whereby the Banfield corporation had succeeded to the assets and business of the partnership were not produced, and apparently were unavailable.The Government served a subpoena duces tecum on the Trustee of the debtor, on its President, and on its attorney.Each responded that he was not in possession of the proposal of the Banfield corporation to purchase the assets and business of the partnership or the bill of sale from the partnership to the corporation.There was evidence...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Schnucks Twenty-Five, Inc. v. Bettendorf
...need not prove the unavailability or nonexistence of the primary evidence "beyond the possibility of mistake." Western Inc. v. United States, 234 F.2d 211, 213 (8th Cir. 1956). Both parties were unsuccessful in locating a copy of the contract during the discovery stage. At the trial level, ......
-
Development Corp. of America v. United Bonding Ins. Co.
...Part I dated March 11, 1969. 2 E.G., Probst v. Presbyterian Church, 1889, 129 U.S. 182, 9 S.Ct. 263, 32 L.Ed. 642; Western, Inc. v. United States, 8 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 211; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Jackson, 8 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 390. See generally 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence §§ 459-62 3 If ......
-
Fredericks v. Howell
...Bonding Insurance Co., 413 F.2d 823 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 957, 90 S.Ct. 430, 24 L.Ed.2d 422 (1969); Western, Inc. v. United States, 234 F.2d 211 (8th Cir.1956); Askins v. Easterling, 141 Colo. 83, 347 P.2d 126 (1959). Bower testified that he had taken the original policy to his......
-
Action Fire Safety Equipment, Inc. v. Biscayne Fire Equipment Co., Inc.
...DCA 1974); Development Corporation of America v. United Bonding Insurance Company, 413 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1969); Western, Inc. v. United States, 234 F.2d 211 (8th Cir. 1956). This conclusion does not, however, dispose of Falsetti's further claim that even if a sufficient foundation for the ......