In re Collin
This text of 18 F. Supp. 848 (In re Collin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It is entirely clear from the record in this case that the claimant was a “traveling or city salesman” within the language of Bankr.Act, § 64b (5), as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104 ,(b) (5). In re Dexter (C.C.A.) 158 F. 788; In re National Marble & Granite Co. (D.C.) 206 F. 185. And the mere fact that he did not devote his entire time to the bankrupt does not destroy his right to priority. In re Shapiro (D.C.) 300 F. 566. Neither was he a separate “contractor” as that term is generally understood. In re Rose, 1 A.B.R. 68; Matter of Moore, 45 A.B.R. 388.
The petition to review is sustained, and the claim granted priority.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
18 F. Supp. 848, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-collin-nysd-1937.