In re Palmer

D. Kansas

In re Palmer

18 F. Cas. 1019, 3 Nat. Bank. Reg. 301

DecidedJuly 1, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 18 F. Cas. 1019 (In re Palmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Palmer, 18 F. Cas. 1019, 3 Nat. Bank. Reg. 301 (D. Kan. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

DELAHAY, District Judge.

No legal appearance has been entered by the objecting creditors. Parties seeking a status in court to oppose the discharge of the bankrupt, must prove themselves creditors by proving up their claims as required by the provisions of the bankrupt act. This, Weaver, Richardson & Co. have not done. No debt has been proved by them. But the specifications would have been improperly filed if their debt had been proved. The power of attorney was made to Brown & Case, and does not confer the power of substitution. It gave Sawyer & Herman no power to act for the creditors. They had no authority to sign it as attorneys, and Sawyer had no authority to sign the name of Brown & Case. The paper, then, is a pure nullity, not made in behalf of one who has proved a debt against the estate, and not signed by any one legally authorized to act for any creditor. There is, therefore, nothing in the case which the court can regard as an objection to the discharge of the bankrupt, and as he seems to have complied with all the provisions of the act, it is granted.

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

DELAHAY, District Judge.

No legal appearance has been entered by the objecting creditors. Parties seeking a status in court to oppose the discharge of the bankrupt, must prove themselves creditors by proving up their claims as required by the provisions of the bankrupt act. This, Weaver, Richardson & Co. have not done. No debt has been proved by them. But the specifications would have been improperly filed if their debt had been proved. The power of attorney was made to Brown & Case, and does not confer the power of substitution. It gave Sawyer & Herman no power to act for the creditors. They had no authority to sign it as attorneys, and Sawyer had no authority to sign the name of Brown & Case. The paper, then, is a pure nullity, not made in behalf of one who has proved a debt against the estate, and not signed by any one legally authorized to act for any creditor. There is, therefore, nothing in the case which the court can regard as an objection to the discharge of the bankrupt, and as he seems to have complied with all the provisions of the act, it is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F. Cas. 1019, 3 Nat. Bank. Reg. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-palmer-ksd-1869.