In re Schildhaus

S.D. New York

In re Schildhaus

4 F. Supp. 696, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1316

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedAugust 15, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 F. Supp. 696 (In re Schildhaus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Schildhaus, 4 F. Supp. 696, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1316 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, District Judge.

The petition was a voluntary one. The bankrupt failed to post with the referee the indemnity required by the rales and the case was closed. No first meeting of creditors had been held and no notice had been sent to creditors. More than six months after adjudication the bankrupt obtained an ex parte order reopening the proceedings, and the referee has since called a first meeting of creditors.

It is now too late for creditors to file claims. The bankrupt’s offer to permit the filing of claims nunc pro tune is worthless, since the time cannot be extended by the parties or by the court. This being the case, it would be inequitable to permit the reopening of the proceedings at this time, merely to enable the bankrupt to obtain his discharge.

The motion to vacate the ex parte order reopening the ease will therefore be granted.

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

PATTERSON, District Judge.

The petition was a voluntary one. The bankrupt failed to post with the referee the indemnity required by the rales and the case was closed. No first meeting of creditors had been held and no notice had been sent to creditors. More than six months after adjudication the bankrupt obtained an ex parte order reopening the proceedings, and the referee has since called a first meeting of creditors.

It is now too late for creditors to file claims. The bankrupt’s offer to permit the filing of claims nunc pro tune is worthless, since the time cannot be extended by the parties or by the court. This being the case, it would be inequitable to permit the reopening of the proceedings at this time, merely to enable the bankrupt to obtain his discharge.

The motion to vacate the ex parte order reopening the ease will therefore be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F. Supp. 696, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schildhaus-nysd-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack