251 F. 427 | S.D.N.Y. | 1918
“It has been uniformly held under the present Bankruptcy Law that the statement of the claim and its consideration must be sufficiently specific and full to enable the trustee and the creditors to make proper investigation as to its fairness and legality, without undue trouble or inconvenience.”
Judge Archbald, in Re Blue Ridge Packing Co. (D. C. Pa.) 11 Am. Bankr. Rep. 36, 125 Fed. 619, considering a case where the question of date was at issue,’ there said:
“The real objection to this claim is that there is no> date. This is certainly necessary to help individuate the debt, as well as to show that it is not outlawed, and, while it was not objected to on that ground, the defect is too patent to be passed by.”
The objection raised now came only after the pronouncement of the re'feree of the election of Helfand. Then the following occurred:
“Mr. Schnabel: Can I ask for the record that the first meeting be adjourned and the election of a trustee kept open, owing to the fact that so many claims have been objected to, in order to give either side an opportunity to correct claims, if they can do so?
“Referee: No; X think that motion must be denied.”
This application came too late, for it came after the objecting credi-. tor had taken his chances, and at a time after a ruling that the various claims rejected could have voted. Indeed, the record discloses that both the present litigants to this plea urged the same objection before the. referee with like ruling.
In the claim of the Ideal Woolen Company, it is apparent that the power of attorney was revoked by the subsequent power of attorney, and it was upon this subsequently executed power of attorney that the vote was cast.
The objection to the American Woolen Company’s proof of debt is not well taken. While it is true it was sworn to outside the Southern district of New York, there was no need for a county clerk’s certificate.
As to the Lymansville Company’s claim, the record contains the following:
"Mr. Boyd states that ho is satisfied not to vote the claim on the ground of the counterclaim, and it is withdrawn.”
The claim of Eisenberg & Friedman appears to have been voted without objections.
I see no reason for disapproving the conclusions of the referee, and the motion will therefore be denied.