In re Moebius

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Moebius

116 F. 47, 1902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 6, 1902

DocketNo. 803

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 116 F. 47 (In re Moebius) 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 Moebius, 116 F. 47, 1902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128 (E.D. Pa. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The right to amend, and especially in aid of a meritorious claim, is granted by the courts with great liberality, but there is a limit beyond which we cannot go. That limit, I think, has been reached in the case now being considered. If the petitioner’s motion to amend his original proof of claim should be granted, he would in fact be given leave to make proof of a debt in violation of section 57n, Bankr. Act, which provides that “claims shall not be proved against a bankrupt estate subsequent to one year after the adjudication.” Ordinarily it may be true that, where the right to prove exists, a motion to amend would probably be allowed (In re Myrick, Fed. Cas. No. 10,000), but here the right to prove has been lost.

The referee’s order is affirmed.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The right to amend, and especially in aid of a meritorious claim, is granted by the courts with great liberality, but there is a limit beyond which we cannot go. That limit, I think, has been reached in the case now being considered. If the petitioner’s motion to amend his original proof of claim should be granted, he would in fact be given leave to make proof of a debt in violation of section 57n, Bankr. Act, which provides that “claims shall not be proved against a bankrupt estate subsequent to one year after the adjudication.” Ordinarily it may be true that, where the right to prove exists, a motion to amend would probably be allowed (In re Myrick, Fed. Cas. No. 10,000), but here the right to prove has been lost.

The referee’s order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 F. 47, 1902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-moebius-paed-1902.

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack