Bankruptcy. Jurisdiction. Involuntary Petition. Amendment. In re Stein, 12 A. B. R. 364

Download Bankruptcy. Jurisdiction. Involuntary Petition. Amendment. In re Stein, 12 A. B. R. 364

Post on 09-Jan-2017




0 download


  • The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.

    Bankruptcy. Jurisdiction. Involuntary Petition. Amendment. In re Stein, 12 A. B. R. 364Source: The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jan., 1905), p. 177Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.Stable URL: .Accessed: 23/05/2014 15:43

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact


    The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe Yale Law Journal.

    This content downloaded from on Fri, 23 May 2014 15:43:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


    without reasonable cause to believe that it was intended thereby to give a preference cannot be determined on a summary petition, against the claim- ant's objection.

    In the case of In re N. Y. Car Wheel W., I32 Fed. 203, the court says: "A referee is without jurisdiction in a summary proceeding to require a third person to turn over to a trustee in bankruptcy money or property to which he asserts an adverse claim, where such claim is made with the apparent inten- tion to defend the same and is not merely colorable." Sec. 23-A Bankruptcy Act; American Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Wallis, I26 Fed. 464; Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, I78 U. S. 524. It is otherwise when the claim is asserted in fraud of creditors or is merely colorable. In re Knickerbocker, I2I Fed. I004; In re Michie, ii6 Fed. 749; Boyd v. Gluck/ick, ii6 Fed. I31. Or when the adverse claimant invokes the jurisdiction of the bankrupt court. In re D. H. McBride &' Co., I32 Fed. 285. When it is shown that a claim is adversely asserted with an apparent intention to protect the same by the usual process of the law, the bankruptcy court is bound to exercise its power with cautious discretion. In re Kane, I3i Fed. 386. The court says in li re Teschknacher, i i A. B. R. 547, that " the adverse claimant is entitled to have his contention examined and judged according to the ordinary and regular process of law."

    BANKRUPTCY-JURISDICTION-INVOLUNTARY PETITION-AMENDMENT.-IN RE STEIN, 12 A. B. R. 364.-An involuntary petition was filed with all necessary averments to give the court jurisdiction but with a deficiency in the amount. A demurrer was filed and on the same day additional claims were also filed to cure the defect in the petition.-Held, that an involuntary petition may not be amended by joining other creditors with claims enough to make up the $500 requisite to confer jurisdiction upon the court.

    The court has jurisdiction only when the averments are set out according to the Bankruptcy Act. In re Scammon, 6 Biss. 130; In re Burch, IO N. B. R. i50; In re Rosenfield, II N. B. R. 86. Amendment will be allowed if the original petition alleges a sufficient number of petitioners, other averments being as required, though it is subsequently discovered that there is a defic- iency. In re Stein, io5 Fed. 749. Also, in case subsequent proceedings develop that the provable claims did not amount to the required sum as set forth in the petition, the court will retain jurisdiction and allow amendment. Colliers Bankru15lcy, 330; In re Beddingfleld, 96 Fed. I8o. The court distinguishes these cases on the ground that jurisdiction had been assumed and it is upheld in this opinion by the dicta in In re Mackey, 6 A. B. R. 577, and in In re Mammoth Pine & L. Co., io9 Fed. 308. Cases of this kind are not likely to arise except through clerical error, as did this one.

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-PUBLIC NUISANCE-ABATEMENT.- MCCONNELL V. MCKILLUP, 99 N. W. 505 (NEB.).-He/d, that a statutory pro- vision subjecting property of a nature innocent in itself and subject to bene- ficial use to forfeiture to the state for unlawful user, without providing for a hearing, deprives the owner of his property without due process of law.

    Forfeitures are not adjudgable by legislative act, except it may be for a violation of the revenue laws. U. S. v. Brig Molek, 2 How. 2i6; Hender- son's D. S., I4 Wall. 4I4. The legislature has the right to authorize judicial proceedings to be taken for the condemnation of property which they have declared to be a nuisance. Barber v. ConnWo0y, II3 U. S. 27; Wurts v.

    This content downloaded from on Fri, 23 May 2014 15:43:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    Article Contentsp. 177

    Issue Table of ContentsThe Yale Law Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jan., 1905), pp. 129-190The Modern "Droit d'Aubaine" [pp. 129-147]The Development of the Judicial System in Rhode Island [pp. 148-170]CommentSavings Bank Deposits as Irrevocable Trusts [pp. 171-172]To What Extent a Legislature May Delegate Its Powers to a Board or Commission [pp. 173-175]

    Recent CasesBankruptcy. Effect of Discharge. Judgment for Damages for Criminal Conversation. Tinker v. Colwell, 24 Sup. Ct. 505 [p. 176]Bankruptcy. Fraudulent Conveyance. Suit to set Aside. Beasley v. Coggins, 12 A. B. R. 355 [p. 176]Bankruptcy. Jurisdiction. Adverse Claim. Consent. In re Adams, 12 A. B. R. 367 [pp. 176-177]Bankruptcy. Jurisdiction. Involuntary Petition. Amendment. In re Stein, 12 A. B. R. 364 [p. 177]Constitutional Law. Due Process. Public Nuisance. Abatement. McConnell v. McKillup, 99 N. W. 505 (Neb.) [pp. 177-178]Constitutional Law. Equal Protection. Taxation. Private Corporation. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 132 Fed. 629 [p. 178]Corporations. Private. Directors. Trustees for Stockholders. Stewart v. Harris, 77 Pac. 277 (Kan.) [pp. 178-179]Criminal Law. Former Jeopardy. Singleness of Transaction. Mann v. Commonwealth, 80 S. W. 438 (Ky.) [p. 179]Criminal Law. Securing Evidence. Participation in Act by Him against Whom It Is Committed. People v. Mills, 70 N. E. 786 (N. Y.) [p. 179]Descent and Distribution. Murder of Ancestor. In Re Kuhn's Estate, 101 N. W. 151 (Iowa) [p. 180]Equity. Election. Tripp v. Nobles, 48 S. E. 675 (S. C.) [p. 180]Evidence. Privileged Communications. Physician. Construction of Statute. Battis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 100 N. W. 543 (Iowa) [pp. 180-181]Highways. Obstruction. Injuries to One Coasting. Reusch v. Licking R. M. Co., 80 S. W. 1168 (Ky.) [p. 181]Highways. Obstructions. Special Damages. Ferry. Parsons v. Hunt, 81 S. W. 120 (Tex.) [p. 181]Insurance. Proof of Loss. Teutonia Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 82 S. E. 840 (Ark.) [pp. 181-182]Mandamus. Telephones. Compelling Installation. Bawdy House. Godwin v. Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Co., 48 S. E. 636 (N. C.). Mandamus [p. 182]Master and Servant. Assumption of Risk. Master's Command. Henrietta Coal Co. v. Campbell, 71 N. E. 863 (Ill.) [pp. 182-183]Partnership. Realty. Conversion into Personalty. Express Agreement. Barney v. Pike, 87 N. Y. Supp. 1038 [p. 183]Railroads. Removal of Trespassers. Liability for Injury. Powell v. Erie Railroad Co., 58 Atl. 930 (N. J.) [p. 183]Waters. Riparian Rights. Irrigation. Clements v. Watkins Land Co., 82 S. W. 665 (Tex.) [p. 184]

    ReviewsReview: untitled [p. 185]Review: untitled [pp. 185-186]Review: untitled [p. 186]Review: untitled [pp. 186-187]Review: untitled [pp. 187-188]Review: untitled [pp. 188-189]

    Acknowledgments [p. 190]


View more >