In re Olmsted

E.D. New York

In re Olmsted

18 F. Cas. 684, 4 Nat. Bank. Reg. 240

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided July 1, 1870·Published

Opinion

HALL, District Judge,

wrote no opinion, but after considering the case dismissed the application, and held the exceptions of the debtor well taken on the ground that the application of Filkins should have been made on the return or adjourned day, and said, that the reason of this rule was that the debtor was then in court, advised of the charges against him, and that it was then competent for the second creditor to take up and enforce the proceedings abandoned by the first creditor; but if he allowed that time to pass he could no longer rely upon that petition as his basis of action, but must begin anew and bring the debtor into court upon his own motion and proceeding.

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

HALL, District Judge,

wrote no opinion, but after considering the case dismissed the application, and held the exceptions of the debtor well taken on the ground that the application of Filkins should have been made on the return or adjourned day, and said, that the reason of this rule was that the debtor was then in court, advised of the charges against him, and that it was then competent for the second creditor to take up and enforce the proceedings abandoned by the first creditor; but if he allowed that time to pass he could no longer rely upon that petition as his basis of action, but must begin anew and bring the debtor into court upon his own motion and proceeding.

In re Olmsted, 18 F. Cas. 684, 4 Nat. Bank. Reg. 240 (E.D.N.Y. 1870).

Pincite

18 F. Cas. 684 (In re Olmsted) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.