In re Holmes

12 F. Cas. 393, 8 Ben. 74, 49 How. Pr. 142
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 26, 1875
StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Cas. 393 (In re Holmes) 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.

Bluebook
In re Holmes, 12 F. Cas. 393, 8 Ben. 74, 49 How. Pr. 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1875).

Opinion

Blatchford, J.

In this matter the alleged bankrupts were copartners. One of them filed a petition in bankruptcy in this court, on behalf of himself and against his copartner, for the adjudication of both of them as bankrupts in respect of their copartnership debts and of the individual debts of each of them.

There has been no adjudication of bankruptcy, but both of the copartners have united in an application under which proceedings for a composition are pending, under the seventeenth section of the act of June 22, 1874. A first meeting of creditors having been called by the court, to take place at the office of the clerk of the court, and the creditors having assembled, the deputy clerk held and presided at the meeting. Its proceedings being in progress, and one of the alleged bankrupts being present at the meeting and being under examination by a creditor, the creditor raised the point before the deputy clerk that, under General Order number 36, a register should hold and preside at the meeting. The point is certified to the court for decision.

The seventeenth section of the act of 1874 provides that the creditors may, at a meeting called under the direction of the court, resolve to accept a composition. The section provides for notice to each known creditor of the time, place and purpose of the meeting, but it contains no provision as to who shall preside at the meeting, and no provision requiring a register to preside at the meeting.

It cannot be doubted that the meeting might lawfully be held in the presence of the judge, and be presided over by him. It has been the practice of this district, where there has been an adjudication, to direct that the meetings of creditors in respect to composition be held at the office of the register to whom the case has been referred, and he has held and presided thereat.

But in cases where there has been an adjudication, it has been the practice in this district to direct that such meetings be field at the office of the clerk of the court, and either the clerk [144]*144or the deputy clerk has held and presided thereat. A reference of a case in bankruptcy to' a register does not take place, under General Order number 4, until a voluntary petition is filed, on which there is a right to an immediate adjudication, or until on an involuntary petition, there is an adjudication. The proceedings which are, by General Order number 4, required to be had before a register are proceedings which are to take place after an adjudication in involuntary bankruptcy, or after the filing of a voluntary petition whereon an adjudication can be immediately had. Therefore, in the present case, where the adjudication was contested by the copartner who did not join in the petition, no case for a reference to a register had arisen, and it was competent to the court to direct the meeting of creditors to be held and presided over by an officer other than a register. It seemed meet that the clerk of the court should be designated.

The deputy clerk, a recognized statutory officer, duly appointed, acted in place of, and in the absence of the clerk, with the assent of the meeting, down to the time this objection was made. The question arises whether, under General Order number 36, it is now incompetent to continue the meeting except with a register as its presiding officer. The general order is entirely prospective in its operation and purports to refer only to proceedings for composition intitiated after its adoption. These proceedings were initiated before, and the meeting was in progress, with the deputy clerk presiding, when the general order was promulgated. The meeting, though adjourning from time to time, is a unit.

The general order provides that the register acting in-the case, or if no register has been assigned, a register to be designated by the court shall, at the time and place specified in the notice for holding such meeting, hold and preside at the same.” Ho register could now, at the time and place specified in the notice for holding this meeting, hold and preside at it, for such time has passed. If the general order is to apply at all to this meeting, the meeting must be dissolved, [145]*145and the proceedings which have taken place must go for naught, and a new meeting must be called. Ho such result could have been intended or contemplated by the general order. In the absence of any general rules to compositions, the courts have administrated the provisions in such manner as seemed most proper, and in consonance with the existing statutes and general orders. In future cases the provisions of General Order number 36 will be observed, but the present case will proceed as it has thus far gone on.

The question is also •certified to the court as to what is comprehended under the language of the seventeenth decision . of the act of 1874, to the effect that the debtor is at the first meeting to answer any inquiries made of him as to the extent to which creditors have a right to carry the examination of the debtor at such first meeting; and as to whether, if an examination of the debtor is desired by any creditor or is in progress, and other creditors desire to have a vote taken on a resolution for composition, and objection be made by any creditor to taking such vote before the examination of the debtor is completed, the presiding officer of the meeting ought to postpone the taking of such votes until after such examination is completed.

The statement which is required by the statute to be produced to the meeting by or on behalf of the debtor, and which > statement is to show the whole of his assets and debts, and the names and addresses of the creditors to whom such debts respectively are due, is a statement upon which the creditors are to act in determining, each for himself, whether he will - vote in favor of a resolution accepting the proposed composition, and whether he will confirm it by his signature. The object in view in requiring the debtor to be present in person at the meeting, and to answer orally any inquiries made of him, fis to enable any creditor who may be dissatisfied with the contents of such statement, or may regard it as inaccurate in omitting things which it ought to contain, or in containing erroneous statements, to inquire of the debtor as to the par[146]*146ticulars respecting which information is thought to be desirable. The'eomppsition proposed can be judged only in reference to the condition of the debtor’s affairs in respect of debts and assets. The statement is supposed to contain a true exhibit of such affairs. The question whether the proposed composition ought to be accepted by any creditor can be determined by him only after he has before him a true exhibit of the debtor’s affairs. The percentage offered in settlement can, be determined to be the proper percentage only by comparing a true statement of the debts with a true statement of the assets. The examinations of the debtor, if desired or entered upon by any creditor, is for the purpose of arriving at a true exhibit of the debtor’s affairs. The inquiries to be made must, of course, be only such as will properly be in furtherance of such object, and such as will aid in determining whether any composition at all ought to be accepted or the terms of the one which ought to be accepted.

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

Related

In re Haskell
11 F. Cas. 771 (D. Massachusetts, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 F. Cas. 393, 8 Ben. 74, 49 How. Pr. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-holmes-nysd-1875.