TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Atlas

In re Atlas, 49 F.2d 474 (E.D.N.Y. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
March 2, 1931
Docket
No. 18708
Judges
Byers
Citations
49 F.2d 4741931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1321

Opinion of the Court — Byers

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

BYERS, District Judge.

Motion by bankrupt to amend his schedules to include the name of a creditor not listed therein.

The petition is deficient in failing to set forth the various dates involved, but a memorandum in support of the motion, filed by *475 the bankrupt’s attorney, is relied upon for that purpose.

The voluntary petition was filed and adjudication had March 15, 1930. The time for the filing of creditors’ claims therefore expired on September 15, 1930.

On August 12, 1930, the bankrupt was served with a summons in which judgment was demanded in the sum of $300.00, and that was delivered to his attorney, but the time of delivery is not stated. However, the bankrupt could have made this motion well in advance of September 15, 1930, so that, prior to. that date, the plaintiff in the action could have been afforded an opportunity to file its claim within the period provided in section 57n of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 USCA see. 93 (n).

This motion was not made until November 14, 1930, and, when it was called, the moving party was directed to give notice to all creditors. Proof that this was done has not been furnished.

Because the court doubted its power to grant the motion at all, the bankrupt’s attorney was requested to submit authority in support of the motion. No memorandum was filed in that behalf until about February 16, 1931.

The only ease therein cited which would he of direct assistance is In re Ingrao (D. C.) 40 F.(2d) 946 . That decision does not discuss the question of whether a creditor added by amendment to the schedules could prove his claim if the six months’ limitation had expired.

In re Rose (D. C.) 43. F.(2d) 446, is a late decision to the effect that the time for filing a claim cannot be extended beyond the statutory period, and that resort to the general equity powers of the bankruptcy court may not be had to\ accomplish that which the statute forbids.

Motion denied. Submit order.

How later courts describe this case

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

1935: 11937: 11938: 11940: 119352026peak 1935 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fourteenth Ave. Security Loan Ass'n v. Squire96 F.2d 799 (3d Cir. 1938)
  2. In re Feldesman13 F. Supp. 1010 (S.D.N.Y. 1935)
  3. In re Scheffler21 F. Supp. 569 (D.N.J. 1937)
  4. In re Mathers36 F. Supp. 547 (W.D.N.Y. 1940)

Most recent

  1. In re Mathers36 F. Supp. 547 (W.D.N.Y. 1940)
  2. Fourteenth Ave. Security Loan Ass'n v. Squire96 F.2d 799 (3d Cir. 1938)
  3. In re Scheffler21 F. Supp. 569 (D.N.J. 1937)
  4. In re Feldesman13 F. Supp. 1010 (S.D.N.Y. 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Ingrao, 40 F.2d 946 (W.D.N.Y. 1930) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list