In re Warner-Quinlan Co.

17 F. Supp. 659, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1674
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 16, 1936
StatusPublished

This text of 17 F. Supp. 659 (In re Warner-Quinlan Co.) 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 Warner-Quinlan Co., 17 F. Supp. 659, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1674 (S.D.N.Y. 1936).

Opinion

HULBERT, District Judge.

This proceeding is under section 77B, Bankr. Act, as amended (11 U.S.C.A. § 207).

The pertinent question before the court for consideration and disposition is an application by the trustees of the debtor for an order authorizing them to accept an offer submitted by Gulf Oil Company, which reads as follows:

“Gulf Oil Corporation
“New York Sales Division
“17 Battery Place
“New York
“October 22, 1936
“Messrs. Alexander Weinstein & Frank R. Galgano
“Trustees for Warner-Quinlan Company
“2 Park Avenue
“New York, N. Y.
“Gentlemen:
“We hereby offer to purchase the fee properties and leaseholds listed on the attached schedules together with equipment and improvements thereon; also all rights, title and interest in and to all contracts and equipment agreements with approximately 400 gasoline tank wago'n dealer and consumer accounts of the Estate of Warner-Quinlan Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates for the sum of $4,125,000. Such amount' will be paid you in cash.
“In the event that the above offer is accepted by the Trustees of the Estate of Warner-Quinlan Company and approved by the court it is understood that these properties, leaseholds and dealer business will be conveyed to us or assigned to us, as the case may be, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances affecting marketable title thereto.
“We realize that in view of the present status of the Warner-Quinlan Company, time will be required to consider and accept this proposal. Accordingly, we hereby advise you that this offer will remain open to you for a period of 45 days.
“It is understood that upon acceptance of this offer our regular purchase contract will be submitted for your formal acceptance and approval by the court.
[661]*661“We shall be pleased to meet with you and any other duly authorized representative of the Estate to discuss the details of this offer.
“Yours very truly,
“Gulf Oil Corporation
“By: [Sgd] M. N. Weir.”

The only notice given, except to the attorneys who have appeared in this proceeding, was by publication in the Daily News Record, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune.

When the trustees’ petition came on for hearing, the debtor opposed the same. Cities Service Company, owner of a substantial portion of the outstanding bonds of the debtor, and a majority of its outstanding common stock, as well as its principal general creditor, while questioning the binding force of the offer, itself submitted a bid in precisely the same terminology, except that it increased the amount of the offer to $4,175,000.

All other parties in interest who have heretofore intervened appeared on said application and favored its acceptance.

The court thereupon adjourned the hearing for the purpose of enabling counsel to prepare and submit a definitive form of contract and upon submission thereof, Cities Service Company formally withdrew its offer and, joined by Cities Service Oil Company (corporate name changed from Crew Levick Company), also claiming to be a substantial creditor, united with the debtor challenging the power of the court.

The Warner-Quinlan Company was incorporated some 30 odd years ago and is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Maine.

Primarily, it engaged in the asphalt business. In 1912 it built a refinery and tank farm upon water-front property at Warners, N. J. In 1925 Frankel Brothers acquired control of the company and extended its activities, acquiring producing fields in Mexico and Texas, filling stations in New York and New Jersey, and also embarked into and carried on a fuel oil business.

The service stations which are the subject-matter of this application are operated by the debtor, or wholly owned subsidiaries, upon property either owned in fee or leasehold, as follows:

xk1IbfGYo3J6yjdo9

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

Related

Mercantile Trading Co. v. Rosenbaum Grain Corp.
83 F.2d 391 (Seventh Circuit, 1936)
In Re Allied Owners Corporation
79 F.2d 187 (Second Circuit, 1935)
Grand Boulevard Inv. Co. v. Strauss
78 F.2d 180 (Eighth Circuit, 1935)
Glassman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
82 F.2d 397 (Third Circuit, 1935)
In re Adolf Gobel, Inc.
12 F. Supp. 225 (E.D. New York, 1935)
In re Finco Dye & Print Works, Inc.
16 F. Supp. 174 (E.D. New York, 1936)
Warner-Quinlan Co. v. Swan-Finch Oil Corp.
296 U.S. 621 (Supreme Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 F. Supp. 659, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-warner-quinlan-co-nysd-1936.