211 F. 333 | 2d Cir. | 1914
“That a very large majority of the claims were opposed to allowing an amendment, and I consider it as very questionable whether I have any right to allow an amendment, either as referee or as special master.”
It is entirely possible that the proposed composition is for the best interests of the creditors and that the opposition of the two creditors named is captious and, perhaps, vexatious. Nevertheless, we think they are entitled to be heard. The objection that the specifications of the Bay State Company were not filed with the referee within ten days after January 2d, because they were left with a clerk in his office on January 11th, after the referee had gone out, the said clerk not being the clerk designated by the referee as the person upon whom service could be made, seems to us unnecessarily harsh, especially so as the 12th of January was Sunday and the referee received the specifications on the Monday following. Furthermore the specifications were not served upon the attorney for the bankrupts within ten days after the return day, as required by rule 9 of the District Court of Connecticut, but three days later. It was, however, within the discretion of the District Court to relieve the creditor from the requirements of its own rule.
The order is affirmfed.