TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kelby v. Prudence-Bonds Corp.

KELBY v. PRUDENCE-BONDS CORPORATION

Kelby v. Prudence-Bonds Corp., 140 F.2d 185 (2d Cir. 1944)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 27, 1944
Docket
No. 207
Judges
Clark, Frank, Swan
Citations
140 F.2d 1851944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3900

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal brings up for review two orders entered in the reorganization proceedings of Prudence Bonds Corporation, whose petition under § 77B, Bankr.Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207 , was filed in June 1934. Confirmation of the plans of reorganization was entered in January 1938. In April 1943 the appellants filed a petition asking for an order directing the new Prudence Bonds Corporation and City Bank Farmers Trust Company, successor trustee of the Eighth Series of the Debt- or's bonds, to pay to First Madison Corporation, or to the other petitioners as successors in interest, the sum of $12,436.-01 plus interest. This sum is claimed to represent advances made by First Madison Corporation in the early part of 1933 in respect of premises covered by a mortgage which constituted part of the securities held by the trustee of the Eighth Series of bonds. The order of June 30, 1943, which is now before us, denied the appellants’ petition. Reconstruction Finance Corporation then moved for a reconsideration of such order or, in the alternative, for an amendment of the confirmed plan of reorganization so as to permit payment of the claim. On July 30, 1943 the motion was denied “without prejudice to a separate motion for the alternative relief requested.” This is the second order before us.

*186 The experienced trial judge who has had charge of these reorganization proceedings for substantially ten years denied the appellants’ claim on two grounds: (1) That no adequate excuse existed for their long delay in presenting it, * and (2) that allowance and payment of the claim would constitute a modification of the confirmed plans which would be both material and adverse to the rights of the bondholders. These were conclusions within his discretion and we see no reason to think that it was not exercised wisely. Order affirmed.

In re Thornycroft, Inc., 2 Cir., 120 F. 2d 469, 470 .

How later courts describe this case

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

1944: 11947: 11966: 119442026peak 1944 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. North American Car Corp. v. Peerless Weighing & Vending MacHine Corp.143 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1944)
  2. Duebler v. Sherneth Corp.160 F.2d 472 (2d Cir. 1947)
  3. In re North Atlantic & Gulf Steamship Co.252 F. Supp. 724 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)

Most recent

  1. In re North Atlantic & Gulf Steamship Co.252 F. Supp. 724 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)
  2. Duebler v. Sherneth Corp.160 F.2d 472 (2d Cir. 1947)
  3. North American Car Corp. v. Peerless Weighing & Vending MacHine Corp.143 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1944)

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
Thornycroft Apartments, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 120 F.2d 469 (2d Cir. 1941) 5

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