TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Premier Mill Corp.

In the Matter of PREMIER MILL CORPORATION, Debtor

In re Premier Mill Corp., 171 F. Supp. 733 (W.D.N.Y. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, W.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
April 24, 1956
Docket
No. 40559
Judges
Burke
Citations
171 F. Supp. 7331956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2206

Opinion of the Court — Burke

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

BURKE, Chief Judge.

Under Section 197 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 597 , I determine on the evidence at the hearing held under that section, that the value of the land and chattels held as security for the mortgage debt is $85,000. The excess of the Government’s claim based on the mortgage debt, over and above $85,000, is hereby classified as an unsecured claim under Section 197. Therefore the question of the right to priority of the Government’s unsecured claim for the excess is presented for determination.

The loan was made under the authority of Section 302 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 2092. Under the authority conferred on the President by Section 304 (50 U.S.C. A.Appendix, § 2094) the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was directed and authorized by Executive Order, as an agency of the government, to make loans as authorized by Section 302. Accordingly, the loan was not one made under the corporation’s regular lending operations, and therefore is not governed by 15 U.S.C.A. § 603 (a) as to priority. At the time of the filing of the petition for reorganization the claim was owned by the Secretary of the Treasury on behalf of the United States. It represented a debt due the United States and is entitled to the priority in this proceeding provided under Section 64, sub. a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104 , sub. a(5) by virtue of 31 U.S.C.A. § 191 .

Since this determination may result in changes or modifications of the proposed plan, the question of confirming the plan should be deferred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1960: 11961: 319602026peak 1961 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. County of Iowa295 F.2d 257 (7th Cir. 1961)
  2. United States v. Davis Mining Enterprises187 F. Supp. 911 (W.D. Wis. 1960)
  3. PEORIA CONSOLIDATED MANUFACTURERS, INC. v. McCOY286 F.2d 642 (7th Cir. 1961)
  4. United States v. McCoy286 F.2d 642 (7th Cir. 1961)

Most recent

  1. United States v. County of Iowa295 F.2d 257 (7th Cir. 1961)
  2. PEORIA CONSOLIDATED MANUFACTURERS, INC. v. McCOY286 F.2d 642 (7th Cir. 1961)
  3. United States v. McCoy286 F.2d 642 (7th Cir. 1961)
  4. United States v. Davis Mining Enterprises187 F. Supp. 911 (W.D. Wis. 1960)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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