In re Diamond

In re Diamond, 149 F. 407 (2d Cir. 1906)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: December 4, 1906
Docket: No. 44
Judges: Coxe, Lacombe, Townsend
Citations: 149 F. 40779 C.C.A. 2271906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4483

Cited by 2

Headnotes

1. Bankruptcy — Court op Bankruptcy — Power to Amend Furor. Orders. A court of bankruptcy has power to amend an order of discharge at any time before the proceedings in the case have been closed provided such amendment will not affect vested rights. 2. Same — Discharge —Faiitnebsiup Debts. Partnership creditors may prove their claims against the estate of a bankrupt partner, although entitled to share only in the surplus of his estate after his individual creditors have been paid, and where their debts have been scheduled, and they have had due notice of the proceedings, the bankrupt is entitled to a discharge from such debts as well as his individual debts. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 778.]

Summary

Petition to Review Order of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This cause comes here upon petition to review an order made by the District Court, Southern District of New York, amending the order of adjudication and petition and order for discharge, so as to discharge the bankrupt from his debts as member of a partnership, as well as from his individual debts. The original schedule enumerated all the firm creditors, who had due notice of all proceedings.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

The amendments were such as the District Court had power to make, and the case seems a proper one for the granting of the relief prayed for. See In re Kaufman (D. C.) 136 Fed. 262, in the conclusion and reasoning of which we fully concur. The petitioning creditor contends that the case cited was erroneously decided because it held that firm creditors might present their claims against the individual bankrupt, whereas this court in Re Janes, 133 Fed. 912 , 67 C. C. A. 216 held that “such proof could not be made.” This is a, misreading of our decision in the Janes Case. , We did not hold that such claims might not be made — indeed section 5f, Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 547 [U.. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3424], evidently contemplates that they may be made — but only that when creditors of a partnership and creditors of an individual member thereof had proved their claims, they should not all share alike in the individual estate, that the individual creditors should first be paid from the individual estate, and that it was the surplus only, if any there were after such payment, which could be marshaled for distribution to the firm creditors.

The order is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Lockhart v. New York Life Ins.71 F.2d 684 (4th Cir. 1934)
In re Andreana Classics134 F. Supp. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)

Most recent

In re Andreana Classics134 F. Supp. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)
Lockhart v. New York Life Ins.71 F.2d 684 (4th Cir. 1934)

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 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	In re Janes, 133 F. 912 (2d Cir. 1904)	10
	In re Kaufman, 136 F. 262 (E.D.N.Y. 1905)	4

`/`	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