In re Kimball

D. Massachusetts

In re Kimball

100 F. 777, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 471

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedOctober 21, 1899

DocketNo. 1,650

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 F. 777 (In re Kimball) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Kimball, 100 F. 777, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 471 (D. Mass. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

LOWELL, District Judge.

I am satisfied that to prevent the attorney of a party from taking the oath of his client to the proof of a debt in bankruptcy would work great inconvenience to the community, and, not improbably, considerable hardship. The matter is one which concerns the practical administration of the law, and not abstract justice. The reasons for the practice are stated in the opinion of the supreme court of Massachusetts in McDonald v. Willis, 143 Mass. 542, 9 N. E. 835. That the attorney for the bankrupt should be forbidden to appear for the creditors in bankruptcy ju-o-ceedings seems to me wise, and in this court the matter will soon be governed by rule. In the absence of a fixed rule, however, while I should sustain the action of a referee who refused to permit the bankrupt’s attorney to conduct the case of a creditor before- him, yet I am not prepared to hold that a referee is bound to reject a claim merely because it was filed by the bankrupt’s attorney. In this case it appears plainly that the attorney in question acted in all good faith. Order of the referee affirmed.

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

LOWELL, District Judge.

I am satisfied that to prevent the attorney of a party from taking the oath of his client to the proof of a debt in bankruptcy would work great inconvenience to the community, and, not improbably, considerable hardship. The matter is one which concerns the practical administration of the law, and not abstract justice. The reasons for the practice are stated in the opinion of the supreme court of Massachusetts in McDonald v. Willis, 143 Mass. 542, 9 N. E. 835. That the attorney for the bankrupt should be forbidden to appear for the creditors in bankruptcy ju-o-ceedings seems to me wise, and in this court the matter will soon be governed by rule. In the absence of a fixed rule, however, while I should sustain the action of a referee who refused to permit the bankrupt’s attorney to conduct the case of a creditor before- him, yet I am not prepared to hold that a referee is bound to reject a claim merely because it was filed by the bankrupt’s attorney. In this case it appears plainly that the attorney in question acted in all good faith. Order of the referee affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 F. 777, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kimball-mad-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack