In re Hebbart

D. Vermont

In re Hebbart

104 F. 322, 1900 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137

CourtDistrict Court, D. Vermont

DecidedSeptember 20, 1900

DocketNo. 258

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 104 F. 322 (In re Hebbart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hebbart, 104 F. 322, 1900 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137 (D. Vt. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

The bankrupt has moved for leave to withdraw Ms petition, in this cause. The motion has been sent to the referee for a report of the facts on notice to the creditors. He has reported on such notice that there was no estate, that no claims were proved, and that no trustee was appointed. In this situation the creditors would have no pecuniary interest in the opposing withdrawal. Nothing remained bnt the question of his discharge, and the withdrawal of the petition would obviate that. The opposition appears to have come from subsequent creditors, who have acquired liens upon subsequent wages, and who desire to have these proceedings kept on foot to prevent others being commenced, through the idea that there cannot be two sets at the same time. The question now, however, relates to the pendency of the j>resent proceedings, without reference to future ones. As to that, he appears to have the right to withdraw as against any creditors who have a right to object. Costs are claimed, but not allowed. Leave to withdraw granted.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

The bankrupt has moved for leave to withdraw Ms petition, in this cause. The motion has been sent to the referee for a report of the facts on notice to the creditors. He has reported on such notice that there was no estate, that no claims were proved, and that no trustee was appointed. In this situation the creditors would have no pecuniary interest in the opposing withdrawal. Nothing remained bnt the question of his discharge, and the withdrawal of the petition would obviate that. The opposition appears to have come from subsequent creditors, who have acquired liens upon subsequent wages, and who desire to have these proceedings kept on foot to prevent others being commenced, through the idea that there cannot be two sets at the same time. The question now, however, relates to the pendency of the j>resent proceedings, without reference to future ones. As to that, he appears to have the right to withdraw as against any creditors who have a right to object. Costs are claimed, but not allowed. Leave to withdraw granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F. 322, 1900 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hebbart-vtd-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack