French v. Busch

E.D. New York

French v. Busch

194 F. 574, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1745

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedMarch 4, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 F. 574 (French v. Busch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

French v. Busch, 194 F. 574, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1745 (E.D.N.Y. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

Application has been made for re-argument, some six months after decision upon a demurrer. In making the application, the grounds of the reargument have been stated. The court sees no reason for granting the reargument, nor for changing its decision, if reargument be had.

The complainant has called attention to the case of Babbitt v. Read (C. C.) 173 Fed. 712, in which the court states that a set-off arising from a debt of the bankrupt is not available against a trustee, suing stockholders for funds to distribute in bankruptcy; and it is suggested that this case was not used upon the preceding argument. It is unnecessary to go into the many questions arising from this proposition. The record shows plainly that upon the whole situation, as admitted by the demurrer, a set-off of the sort in question should be allowed in this case; and, it being apparent that the facts which might be produced upon the trial would present the actual situation shown by the admissions of the demurrer, it does not seem that after this long lapse of time a reargument should be had, based upon the single point that the demurrer to the set-off or counterclaim should not, as a matter of technical pleading, have been assumed to admit more than the specific facts of the counterclaim itself. As a matter of fact, it may well be doubted whether, even if nothing but the allegations of the complaint, the counterclaim, and the demurrer thereto be taken, a situation is not presented upon which the demurrer should be overruled.

Motion for reargument, therefore, will be denied.

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

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

Application has been made for re-argument, some six months after decision upon a demurrer. In making the application, the grounds of the reargument have been stated. The court sees no reason for granting the reargument, nor for changing its decision, if reargument be had.

The complainant has called attention to the case of Babbitt v. Read (C. C.) 173 Fed. 712, in which the court states that a set-off arising from a debt of the bankrupt is not available against a trustee, suing stockholders for funds to distribute in bankruptcy; and it is suggested that this case was not used upon the preceding argument. It is unnecessary to go into the many questions arising from this proposition. The record shows plainly that upon the whole situation, as admitted by the demurrer, a set-off of the sort in question should be allowed in this case; and, it being apparent that the facts which might be produced upon the trial would present the actual situation shown by the admissions of the demurrer, it does not seem that after this long lapse of time a reargument should be had, based upon the single point that the demurrer to the set-off or counterclaim should not, as a matter of technical pleading, have been assumed to admit more than the specific facts of the counterclaim itself. As a matter of fact, it may well be doubted whether, even if nothing but the allegations of the complaint, the counterclaim, and the demurrer thereto be taken, a situation is not presented upon which the demurrer should be overruled.

Motion for reargument, therefore, will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F. 574, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-busch-nyed-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack