In re WORTH LIGHTING & FIXTURE CO., Inc.

292 F. 769, 1923 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1346
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 13, 1923·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

LEARNED HAND, District Judge.

The business of the claimant did not include, certainly in this instance, “discounting bills, notes or other evidences of debt.” The accounts for goods sold, which the bankrupt assigned to it, were not “evidences of debt.” They were dioses in action arising from sales of goods contained on the books of [773]*773the bankrupt. What the statute means is commercial paper, which may-pass from one to another, bearing the signature of the debtor. The bankrupt had none such, and assigned none such. Besides, it did not discount the accounts. Discounting is getting the present value of the debt; i. e., its face, less interest. This the bankrupt did not do. It kept the equity in the accounts above its own debts, and if these should turn out to be any the claimant would be accountable.

By no conceivable theory is this within any phase of section 22 of the New York General Corporation Law. The claimant is doing a business precisely like a pawnbroker, except that the pawns are not chattels.

Report confirmed.

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

In re WORTH LIGHTING & FIXTURE CO., Inc., 292 F. 769, 1923 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1923).

292 F. 769 (In re WORTH LIGHTING & FIXTURE CO., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Silver Sands v. Pensacola Loan & Savings Bank
174 So. 2d 61 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Antipyros Co. v. Samuel Breiter & Co.
8 Misc. 2d 310 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Taylor v. New Line Industries
117 A.2d 643 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Rosen v. Garston
66 N.E.2d 29 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
In Re Bernard & Katz
38 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1930)
Knowles v. Ritter
38 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1930)