In re Byrd Coal Co.

E.D. New York

In re Byrd Coal Co.

21 F. Supp. 664, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1256

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedNovember 27, 1937

DocketNo. 27926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 F. Supp. 664 (In re Byrd Coal Co.) 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

In re Byrd Coal Co., 21 F. Supp. 664, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1256 (E.D.N.Y. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is a hearing on a petition to review the order of the referee in charge of this proceeding confirming the sale of the assets of the bankrupt. Originally objection was made by David Haar, Esq., as well as the bankrupt, to the order of the referee. Upon the argument the objection of the bankrupt was withdrawn. The sale of the assets was had pursuant to General Order 18, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53, upon notice to all creditors. The sale of the assets included an alleged claim against Mr. Haar.

It may very well be as contended by Mr. Haar that the claim has no basis in fact or in law and that the sale of the alleged claim against Mr. Haar will result in considerable litigation. Nevertheless, Mr. Haar is an individual against whom a claim has been asserted by the trustee, he therefore has no interest as is contemplated by the Bankruptcy Law, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., and his objection cannot be heard. At most he is a prospective defendant in a suit that might be brought upon the claim. Only a creditor or a higher bidder has sufficient interest to object to a sale in bankruptcy. In re Realty Foundation, 2 Cir., 75 F.2d 286; In re Haywood Wagon Co., 2 Cir., 219 F. 655; Jacobsohn v. Larkey, 3 Cir., 245 F. 538, L.R.A.1918C, 1176. The sale was conducted in the usual way and complied with General Order 18; it therefore cannot be disturbed.

The petition to review is dismissed.

Settle order on notice.

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

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is a hearing on a petition to review the order of the referee in charge of this proceeding confirming the sale of the assets of the bankrupt. Originally objection was made by David Haar, Esq., as well as the bankrupt, to the order of the referee. Upon the argument the objection of the bankrupt was withdrawn. The sale of the assets was had pursuant to General Order 18, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53, upon notice to all creditors. The sale of the assets included an alleged claim against Mr. Haar.

It may very well be as contended by Mr. Haar that the claim has no basis in fact or in law and that the sale of the alleged claim against Mr. Haar will result in considerable litigation. Nevertheless, Mr. Haar is an individual against whom a claim has been asserted by the trustee, he therefore has no interest as is contemplated by the Bankruptcy Law, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., and his objection cannot be heard. At most he is a prospective defendant in a suit that might be brought upon the claim. Only a creditor or a higher bidder has sufficient interest to object to a sale in bankruptcy. In re Realty Foundation, 2 Cir., 75 F.2d 286; In re Haywood Wagon Co., 2 Cir., 219 F. 655; Jacobsohn v. Larkey, 3 Cir., 245 F. 538, L.R.A.1918C, 1176. The sale was conducted in the usual way and complied with General Order 18; it therefore cannot be disturbed.

The petition to review is dismissed.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F. Supp. 664, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-byrd-coal-co-nyed-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack