In re Haynes

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

In re Haynes

11 F. Cas. 914, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 227

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedJuly 1, 1867

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. Cas. 914 (In re Haynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Haynes, 11 F. Cas. 914, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 227 (circtddc 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

WYLIE, J.

Where, at the first meeting of the creditors of the bankrupt, a single creditor appeals and proves his debts, and where assets have come to the hands of the assignees, and no other debts are proven, in such case the right to choose the assignee belongs to the sole creditor who has proven his claim; and in the distribution of the assigned estate, he is entitled to be paid in full if there be enough for that purpose; if there be not enough he takes the whole. But if there be more than enough to pay his claims, then, rather than the balance should be returned to the bankrupt, it should be distributed pro rata among the creditors who have failed to make proof of their claims, but whose claims have been acknowledged to be valid by the applicant himself.

[See In re Brisco, Case No. 1,886; In re James, Id. 7,175.]

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

WYLIE, J.

Where, at the first meeting of the creditors of the bankrupt, a single creditor appeals and proves his debts, and where assets have come to the hands of the assignees, and no other debts are proven, in such case the right to choose the assignee belongs to the sole creditor who has proven his claim; and in the distribution of the assigned estate, he is entitled to be paid in full if there be enough for that purpose; if there be not enough he takes the whole. But if there be more than enough to pay his claims, then, rather than the balance should be returned to the bankrupt, it should be distributed pro rata among the creditors who have failed to make proof of their claims, but whose claims have been acknowledged to be valid by the applicant himself.

[See In re Brisco, Case No. 1,886; In re James, Id. 7,175.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. Cas. 914, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-haynes-circtddc-1867.