Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Zarega's case, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 40, note
Zeigenfuss' case, 2 Iredell, 463

445

92

THE NATIONAL

BANKRUPTCY REGISTER.

REPORTS.

VOLUME I.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT, S. D. NEW YORK. The United States district court, sitting in bankruptcy, has power, by injunction, to stay proceedings in the state courts against a bankrupt.

In re HORATIO REED.1

ON a petition for a stay of proceedings in the state courts against the said Reed, Judge Blatchford established a precedent for a liberal construction of section 21 of the bankrupt act, by issuing an order as follows:

The petitioner in this case having, on the 7th day of June, 1867, duly filed his petition in bankruptcy in the office of the clerk of this court, for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of the act of congress, approved March 2, 1867, entitled "An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States," and it appearing, to the satisfaction of this court, that Walter S. Vose and James F. Joyce obtained a judgment in the supreme court, State of New York, against the said Horatio Reed, on the 18th day of August, 1860, for the sum of $1,103.78 damages and costs; and that an execution upon said judgment against the property of the said Horatio Reed has been duly issued and returned wholly unsatisfied, and that the said judgment is a debt provable 1 Cited in Wright's case, 2 N. B. R., 58, quarto, and Ex parte Donaldson, post,

[blocks in formation]

In re Julius A. Boylan.

under the said act, and that proceedings are now pending on said judgment in the said supreme court, by means of an order for the examination of the said Reed as a judgment debtor, issued on the 24th day of May, 1867, by the Hon. Josiah Sutherland, one of the justices of the said court.

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that all proceedings under the said order, and all further proceedings upon the part of the plaintiffs in the said judgment, upon the said judgment, be, and the same are hereby upon the application of the said Horatio Reed, stayed to await the determination of this court in bankruptcy, on the question of the discharge of the said Horatio Reed, under the said act, until the question of his discharge thereunder shall have been determined by this court.

S. BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

June 12, 1867.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT, S. D. NEW YORK.

Where one partner residing in New York city, petitioned individually, and was adjudged bankrupt, and two other partners residing in Cincinnati, Ohio, petitioned as copartners to be allowed to join in the application of the first, and file their petitions in the same district: Held, That the court had no jurisdiction to grant such leave, as the single partner had petitioned as an individual debtor for an individual discharge.

In re JULIUS A. BOYLAN.

BLATCHFORD, J. The petition of Daniel K. Harvey and Thomas H. Boylan, shows that they were copartners with Julius A. Boylan, and carried on business under the firm name of Boylan & Co., at Cincinnati, Ohio, until April 19, 1861, when the copartnership was dissolved; that Julius A. Boylan, on the 27th of June, 1867, filed his petition in this court for his discharge in bankruptcy, and was adjudged a bankrupt on the 28th of June, 1867; that he had no individual assets except such as are exempt, nor are there any copartnership assets of any kind; that all the indebtedness of Julius A. Boylan is the copartnership debts, as appears by his

In re Julius A. Boylan.

petition and schedules; that Harvey and Thomas H. Boylan reside in Ohio; that they have no debts except the copartnership debts of Boylan & Co., and their liabilities are for exactly the same amounts and to the same individuals as those of Julius A. Boylan; that they are about to take the benefit of the bankruptcy act, but cannot do so without incurring a large and unnecessary expense if compelled each individually to proceed under the act; that the creditors of the firm are one hundred and eighteen in number, and that they would be put to great expense and trouble if compelled to attend the meetings of the creditors of the firm in two different parts of the country as far apart as New York city and Cincinnati, Ohio. The petitioners pray that leave be given them to join in the application of Julius A. Boylan for their discharge in bankruptcy under the act, and that they have leave to file their petitions under the act in this court, and that all proceedings under such petition be had in this district, and that all proceedings on the part of Julius A. Boylan be stayed until the final disposition of such petition. In support of the prayer of this petition, reference is made to the thirty-sixth section of the bankruptcy act, which provides "that where two or more persons who are partners in trade shall be adjudged bankrupt, either on the petition of such partners or any one of them, or on the petition of any creditor of the partners, a warrant shall issue in the manner provided by this act, upon which all the joint stock and property of the copartnership, and also all the separate estate of each of the partners shall be taken, except such parts thereof as are herein before excepted;" and that "if such copartners reside in different districts, the court in which the petition is first filed shall retain exclusive jurisdiction over the case."

It is urged that under these provisions all the partners of the firm of Boylan & Co., of which Julius A. Boylan was one, can come into this court without regard to their place of residence or doing business, and ask for their discharges, provided Julius A. Boylan resides or does business in this district, and first files his petition here.

« PreviousContinue »