Bickley v. Armour & Co

Ohio Court of Appeals

Bickley v. Armour & Co

178 N.E. 590, 40 Ohio App. 252, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 330, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 487

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 1931

Docket353

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 N.E. 590 (Bickley v. Armour & Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bickley v. Armour & Co, 178 N.E. 590, 40 Ohio App. 252, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 330, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 487 (Ohio Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

*331 RICHARDS, J.

We do not find the elements of estoppel present in this case. Bickley suffered no detriment or prejudice by reason of making the proof of claim phrased as above stated. Furthermore, the guaranty held by Armour & Company was that of a third party and in no wise secured by any property of the bankrupt, and, therefore, Armour & Company was not a secured creditor within class 23, Section 1 of the Bankruptcy Act! As was held in Bank of Searcy v Merchants’ Grocer Co., 185 S.W., 806, the fact that the debt of a bankrupt is secured by collateral other than that of the bankrupt himself, does not make it a secured claim within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act. See also:

Collier on Bankruptcy, 724;

In re Otto F. Lang Co., 170 Fed., 114;

Gorman v Wright, 136 Fed., 164.

We call attention to the fact that the parties are relying, in this case, on an agreed statement of facts, but that is not contained in any bill of exceptions and, indeed, no bill of exceptions was taken, so that the agreed statement of facts can not be considered by this court. However, the controlling facts are not in dispute in the pleadings and no reply was filed, so that the averments relating to the proof of claim are not denied.

Judgment affirmed.

LLOYD and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*331 RICHARDS, J.

We do not find the elements of estoppel present in this case. Bickley suffered no detriment or prejudice by reason of making the proof of claim phrased as above stated. Furthermore, the guaranty held by Armour & Company was that of a third party and in no wise secured by any property of the bankrupt, and, therefore, Armour & Company was not a secured creditor within class 23, Section 1 of the Bankruptcy Act! As was held in Bank of Searcy v Merchants’ Grocer Co., 185 S.W., 806, the fact that the debt of a bankrupt is secured by collateral other than that of the bankrupt himself, does not make it a secured claim within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act. See also:

Collier on Bankruptcy, 724;

In re Otto F. Lang Co., 170 Fed., 114;

Gorman v Wright, 136 Fed., 164.

We call attention to the fact that the parties are relying, in this case, on an agreed statement of facts, but that is not contained in any bill of exceptions and, indeed, no bill of exceptions was taken, so that the agreed statement of facts can not be considered by this court. However, the controlling facts are not in dispute in the pleadings and no reply was filed, so that the averments relating to the proof of claim are not denied.

Judgment affirmed.

LLOYD and WILLIAMS, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.E. 590, 40 Ohio App. 252, 10 Ohio Law. Abs. 330, 1931 Ohio App. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bickley-v-armour-co-ohioctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack