In re Lackow

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Lackow

140 F. 573, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 19, 1905

DocketNo. 2,311

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 F. 573 (In re Lackow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Lackow, 140 F. 573, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101 (E.D. Pa. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The first ground of demurrer does not need consideration. The alleged defect therein specified has been removed by the motion to amend, which is now allowed. The second ground was not pressed upon the argument before the court, and the third is not well taken. The time of making the preferential payment and its amount are both specified, and the failure to state the names of the creditors is sufficiently accounted for. If their names had been known, it would have been necessary to set them forth; but I do not think that the bankrupt law intended to require from petitioning creditors the attempt to perform impossibilities. If they do not know the names of preferred creditors, and cannot learn them by proper inquiry and investigation, the petition is good, in my opinion, although it may only aver in general terms that the payment has been made, adding the reason why a more specific allegation is not possible.

The report of the special referee is approved, and the clerk is ordered to enter a decree of adjudication.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The first ground of demurrer does not need consideration. The alleged defect therein specified has been removed by the motion to amend, which is now allowed. The second ground was not pressed upon the argument before the court, and the third is not well taken. The time of making the preferential payment and its amount are both specified, and the failure to state the names of the creditors is sufficiently accounted for. If their names had been known, it would have been necessary to set them forth; but I do not think that the bankrupt law intended to require from petitioning creditors the attempt to perform impossibilities. If they do not know the names of preferred creditors, and cannot learn them by proper inquiry and investigation, the petition is good, in my opinion, although it may only aver in general terms that the payment has been made, adding the reason why a more specific allegation is not possible.

The report of the special referee is approved, and the clerk is ordered to enter a decree of adjudication.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F. 573, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lackow-paed-1905.

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack