In re Saxton Furnace Co.

136 F. 697, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 27, 1905
DocketNo. 1,837
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 136 F. 697 (In re Saxton Furnace Co.) 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 Saxton Furnace Co., 136 F. 697, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266 (E.D. Pa. 1905).

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I do not see how the proposed •order of sale can be supported. The creditors who hold the furnace company’s bonds have a right, under the mortgage, to use them in payment of the purchase money if the property shall be sold by a judicial sale, and of this right they should not be deprived if their title is unimpeachable. If the trustee disputes their right to retain the bonds, averring that they have received a preference, it would seem to be his duty to obtain a judicial decision of the question, even at the cost of delay and inconvenience.

Moreover, the record should show affirmatively that every creditor whose lien will be discharged by the sale has received notice of the trustee’s application to sell. The referee’s general statement that such notice “was given to each and every general creditor and lien creditor” is obviously insufficient. No doubt, this is his opinion, and it may be true; but his record must show the facts by which other persons can verify the correctness of his statement.

If the present is a favorable time for the sale of such property as furnaces and rolling mills, I regret the inevitable postponement, but the defects in the proceedings are fundamental, and can only be cured by the consent of the parties whose rights are involved. But as they must all desire to be paid, and paid speedily, I trust they may see [698]*698their way to an agreement that may advance their interests. Otherwise there seems to be no escape from the necessity to determine first of all who are the lawful holders of the bonds.

The order is set aside.

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

Related

Housing Investment Corp. v. Todman
15 V.I. 300 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 1978)
In re Renne
55 F. Supp. 868 (D. Nebraska, 1944)
Cecil v. Wise
109 S.W.2d 214 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
First Trust & Savings Bank of Clare v. Kleih
205 N.W. 843 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
In re Feeney Tool Co.
300 F. 379 (D. Connecticut, 1924)
McRaney v. Riley
91 So. 399 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1922)
In re Franklin Brewing Co.
249 F. 333 (Second Circuit, 1918)
Clark Hardware Co. v. Sauve
220 F. 102 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
In re Fayetteville Wagon-Wood & Lumber Co.
197 F. 180 (W.D. Arkansas, 1912)
In re Platteville Foundry & Machine Co.
147 F. 828 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1906)
Allgair v. William F. Fisher & Co.
143 F. 962 (Third Circuit, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 F. 697, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-saxton-furnace-co-paed-1905.