In re Hudson River Electric Co.

167 F. 986, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 398
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 19, 1909
StatusPublished

This text of 167 F. 986 (In re Hudson River Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.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 Hudson River Electric Co., 167 F. 986, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 398 (N.D.N.Y. 1909).

Opinion

RAY, District Judge.

Each of the corporations above named is a public service corporation, and each has been adjudicated a bankrupt, no defense, answer, or demurrer to the petitions or either of them having-been filed. The order of adjudication in each case was made as matter of course, and without an examination of the petition. A very short time before these petitions were filed, and there was slight difference in the days of filing, a suit in equity was commenced in the Circuit Court of the United States by Eben H. Gay and another against the companies named and two others, Hudson River Water Power Company, and, Ballston Spa Eight & Power Company, also public service corporations, as defendants, charging, among other things, that they were insolvent, being mismanaged, their property wasted and misapplied, etc.., and that there is, in fact, practically but one company, the others being owned and controlled by it through ownership of stock agreements, etc., and that all have been and were being run, conducted, and managed as one company, and should be in the future kept tog-ether as one in the interests of stockholders, bondholders, general creditors, and the public. The object of the action was and is, the action being now pending, to wind them up and have a sale, etc., and, if possible, effect a reorganization in the interest of all. A receiver was asked for, and the Circuit Court duly appointed Geo. W. Dunn, Milton Delano, and Charles W. Andrews receivers of such corporations, with instruction to keep them together and run and manage them as one; keeping the accounts separate, however. These receivers duly qualified and entered on the discharge of their duties, and are now operating under the orders of the Circuit Court of the United States. The properties of these companies have cost millions of dollars, and each is heavily bonded, the aggregate amount of bonds being about ten millions of dollars or upwards. There are outstanding contracts for the furnishing of light and power to other corporations, cities, villages, etc., as well as to individuals. The affairs are in a mixed and tangled condition, and such receivers, with flie aid of appraisers appointed by the Circuit Court, are engaged in making an inventory and appraisal o-f all the properties. The operations of the companies extend over several hundred square miles of territory. While some of the corporations generate and make both electricity and gas, one generates electricity only, while another trans - mits it.

As bankruptcy proceedings were already pending against the Hudson River Water Power Company, which has a plant for the generation of electricity and a dam across the Hudson river, and is per[988]*988haps the most important company of the eight involved, this court appointed the same receivers for that company, but they- are managing and operating its affairs and plant under the authority of the Circuit Court, no adjudication having been made. In that case an answer was interposed and the question raised, which is, as yet, undetermined,' that, being a public service corporation and engaged principally in' •generating and selling electricity, the corporation is not subject to the provisions of the bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418]), and cannot be adjudicated a bankrupt. It is claimed that the Hudson River Electric Power Company is the principal one of the eight, and that the others are subsidiary. Whether this or the Hudson River Power Company'- is the principal company, it has not been controverted that the others are subsidiary companies. The pendency of the suit in equity, the" appointment of the receivers, and their possession of all the properties of the companies well may have, and seem to have, diverted attention from the filing of the petitions in bankruptcy. The receivers had just entered on the discharge of their duties, and were in ignorance of the facts.

The Schenec.tady Trust-Company is one of the largest creditors of .Hudson River Electric Power Company, having provable claims to the amount of some $6,000, and alleges that it had no knowledge of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, or of the adjudication made November 20, 1908, until November 24, 1908. It moved promptly to vacate the adjudication, alleging, in brief, that said alleged bankrupt is a public service corporation organized under the transportation law of the state of New York, and is engaged principally in transporting and transmitting electric current for the purposes of light, heat, and power; that the petition filed against it is defective and insufficient, and does not disclose such fact, etc. It alleges that such corporation is not subject to be adjudicated a bankrupt, and asks to have the adjudication vacated and to be allowed to come in and defend.

In substance and effect, on the same or similar allegations raising the same questions, such trust company, having the same standing, asks the same relief in the case of the Hudson River .Electric Company, organized under said transportation law, and engaged principally in purchasing, transporting, and selling electric current. Ignorance of the bankruptcy proceedings, etc., as above stated, is also alleged.

The Schenectady Trust Company is a lárge creditor of the Hudson River Power Transmission Company, and asks to have the adjudication in that case, made on the same day, vacated and set aside, and be allowed to come in and defend on the ground that the petition filed did not show that the alleged bankrupt corporation was engaged principally in manufacturing, trading, printing, publishing, mining, or mercantile pursuits, etc., and that the said alleged bankrupt corporation is in fact a public service corporation engaged principally in the occupation of transporting and transmitting electric current for the purposes of light, 'heat, and power, and is not engaged in either of the pursuits before mentioned, and is not subject to the provisions of the bankruptcy act. The said trust company alleges that it was ignorant of the bankruptcy proceedings until 'four days after the ad[989]*989judication. It thereupon moved promptly to vacate the adjudication. In this case the receivers join in the application to vacate, and ask to defend, and allege ignorance of the main and pertinent facts which would justify a defense and allege that, having made an investigation, they have ascertained that the petitioning creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding against the Hudson River Power Transmission Company are not creditors of said corporation, and that the petition does not set forth that the alleged bankrupt is a corporation, or what, if any,, business it is engaged in, or in fact show that it is one of the corporations that comes under the provisions of the bankrupt law, etc.

In the matter of the Saratoga Gas, Electric Eight & Power Company, the Schenectady Trust Company alleges that it is a creditor of such corporation having a provable claim to the amount of $2,150, and that in the petition filed against said corporation there was no allegation to the effect that it was engaged principally in manufacturing, trading, printing, publishing, mining, or mercantile pursuits, or any one or more of said occupations, and alleges that in fact the said corporation is a public service corporation engaged principally in the occupation of lighting the streets and public and private buildings of the village of Saratoga Springs, N. Y., by means of gas and electricity, and is not engaged principally in either of the occupations or businesses which would bring it within the provisions of the bankrupt act.

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

Related

In re New England Breeders' Club
165 F. 517 (D. New Hampshire, 1908)
In re New York Tunnel Co.
166 F. 284 (Second Circuit, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 F. 986, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hudson-river-electric-co-nynd-1909.