In re Levy

110 F. 744
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania·Decided July 15, 1901·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, District Judge

(orally). These creditors voluntarily came into court, accepted the proposed composition, and asked the court to act in the matter, and confirm the composition. They procured the court to act, and they are now estopped from interfering with the further conduct of the case in the matter of this composition, tfad they alleged fraud or misrepresentation in the procuring of their signatures to the acceptance, the case would be different. They are presumed to have had the same knowledge when they signed as they have now. The application for their withdrawal will be refused, and the court will proceed to pass upon' the merits of the proposed composition. If it is not for the best interests of the creditors, it can be shown on the hearing before the referee.

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

In re Levy, 110 F. 744 (W.D. Pa. 1901).

110 F. 744 (In re Levy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Norman Finance & Thrift Corp.
298 F. Supp. 336 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1969)
In Re Pressed Steel Car Co. of New Jersey
16 F. Supp. 329 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1936)
Kershaw v. Wick Narrow Fabric Co.
84 F.2d 564 (Third Circuit, 1936)
McKeever v. Local Finance Co.
80 F.2d 449 (Fifth Circuit, 1935)
In re Balco Builders, Inc.
22 F.2d 845 (E.D. New York, 1927)
In re Jablow
15 F.2d 132 (Second Circuit, 1926)
In re Bryer
281 F. 812 (Second Circuit, 1922)
In re Agree
247 F. 590 (E.D. Michigan, 1918)
State ex rel. First National Bank v. Federal Union Surety Co.
137 S.W. 613 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)