Needham v. Long's Estate

Ella C. Needham v. Clark E. Long's Estate

Needham v. Long's Estate, 53 A. 326 (Vt. 1902)

Court: Supreme Court of Vermont · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 19, 1902
Judges: Haselton, Munson, Rowell, Stafford, Start, Tyler, Watson
Citations: 53 A. 32675 Vt. 117

Cited by 0

Headnotes

Insolvency — Contingent claim — Order for dividend. An order of the Court of Insolvency declaring, in terms, a dividend of a blank per cent to the creditors of an insolvent estate, does not amount to an order of a dividend, final or otherwise.

Summary

Appeal in Insolvency. Heard on an agreed statement of facts at the March Term, 1902, Rutland County, Watson, J., presiding. Judgment, pro forma, for the claimant. The assignees excepted. The plaintiff’s claim was not seasonably presented to the Court of Insolvency. On January 10, 1900, the third meeting of the creditors was held. The estate was finally closed on that day. The dividend was ordered, but the amount was not computed. The appeal on another claim suspended the figuring of the final dividend, but did not keep the estate open so as to allow any new matters or new claims, contingent or otherwise, to be presented. V. S. 2074 enables this claimant to present his claim at any time. This means at any time before the estate is closed by an allowance of the final dividend thereon. The order of the Court of insolvency shown by the agreed statement does not amount to this, so the claim was presented seasonably.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Haselton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Haselton, J.

The sole question in this case is whether a contingent claim of the plaintiff against the insolvent estate of Clark L. Long was seasonably presented to the Court of Insolvency. In determining this question it is not necessary to determine the meaning of the phrase “at any time”' as used in V. S. 2074, in relation to the time for filing such claims. The statute malees it clear, and the defendant concedes, that the claim was seasonably presented if it was presented before the order for the final dividend; and it was so presented. Before the presentation of the claim there was an order of the Court of Insolvency declaring, in terms, a dividend of a blank sum on the dollar to the creditors of the estate; but this did not amount to the order of a dividend, final or otherwise. Besides, the order was made at a time when, by reason of litigation over a claim called the “Tower Claim,” there could be no order of the final dividend.

The pro forma judgment of the County Court is affirmed, and the cause is remanded that proceedings may be had in accordance with such judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list