Glover Grocery Co. v. Dorne

42 S.E. 347, 116 Ga. 216, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 62
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 8, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 42 S.E. 347 (Glover Grocery Co. v. Dorne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Glover Grocery Co. v. Dorne, 42 S.E. 347, 116 Ga. 216, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 62 (Ga. 1902).

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

Without stating the facts of this case, it is sufficient to say that it turns upon the question indicated above, which was, in our opinion, rightly decided by the superior court. Sec- ■ tion 12 of the bankrupt act of 1898 declares that a bankrupt may, at a specified stage of the proceedings, “ offer terms of composition” [218]*218to bis creditors, and provides for the filing of an “ application for the confirmation of a composition ” after its acceptance “in writing by a majority in number of all creditors whose claims have been allowed, which number must represent a majority in amount of such claims,” and after the bankrupt shall have made, under the order of the judge, a deposit of money sufficiently large to cover the “ consideration to be paid by the bankrupt to his creditors ” and pay all preferred debts and the costs of the proceedings. This section also specifies the terms and conditions upon which a composition may be confirmed, and directs that “ upon the confirmation of a composition, the consideration shall be distributed as the judge shall direct, and the case dismissed.” In section 14 of this act, it is declared that: “ The confirmation of a composition shall discharge the bankrupt from his debts, other than those agreed to be paid by the terms of the composition, and those not affected by a discharge.” See Brandenburg on Bankruptcy, 802, 803, 804.

A reading of these provisions of the bankrupt act will show, without discussion, that the proposition announced in the headnote is correct.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., absent.

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

Related

In Re Kornbluth
65 F.2d 400 (Second Circuit, 1933)
Levy v. American Wholesale Corp.
122 S.E. 808 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Dunlop Milling Co. v. Ozburn
121 S.E. 810 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Cobb v. First Nat. Bank
263 F. 1000 (N.D. Georgia, 1920)
Vaughn-Carlton Co. v. Studebaker Corp. of America
97 S.E. 99 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
In re Harvey
144 F. 901 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 S.E. 347, 116 Ga. 216, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-grocery-co-v-dorne-ga-1902.