Gafco, Inc. v. Macleod

Second Circuit

Gafco, Inc. v. Macleod

128 F.2d 260, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3558

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1942

DocketNo. 267

StatusPublished

This text of 128 F.2d 260 (Gafco, Inc. v. Macleod) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gafco, Inc. v. Macleod, 128 F.2d 260, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3558 (2d Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Gafco, Inc., a creditor of Katz & William, Inc., bankrupt, from an order of the district court which confirmed an order of the referee in bankruptcy appointing appellee trustee of the bankrupt’s estate. At the first meeting of creditors, the referee declared a deadlock in the election, neither candidate having a majority of creditors in number and amount, and made the challenged appointment. 11 U.S.C.A. § 72, sub. a. The appellant objected to the voting of claims in favor of Mr. Macleod on the ground that the proof of claim and the power of attorney were combined in a single instrument with a single oath and acknowledgment. This objection is utterly lacking in merit. There was substantial, if not literal (as we think), compliance with General Order 21, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. Substantial compliance is sufficient. See In re State Thread Co., 6 Cir., 126 F.2d 296, 299; Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th Ed., p. 1285. The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Gafco, Inc., a creditor of Katz & William, Inc., bankrupt, from an order of the district court which confirmed an order of the referee in bankruptcy appointing appellee trustee of the bankrupt’s estate. At the first meeting of creditors, the referee declared a deadlock in the election, neither candidate having a majority of creditors in number and amount, and made the challenged appointment. 11 U.S.C.A. § 72, sub. a. The appellant objected to the voting of claims in favor of Mr. Macleod on the ground that the proof of claim and the power of attorney were combined in a single instrument with a single oath and acknowledgment. This objection is utterly lacking in merit. There was substantial, if not literal (as we think), compliance with General Order 21, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. Substantial compliance is sufficient. See In re State Thread Co., 6 Cir., 126 F.2d 296, 299; Collier on Bankruptcy, 14th Ed., p. 1285. The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F.2d 260, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gafco-inc-v-macleod-ca2-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack