In re Crenshaw
District Court, S.D. Alabama
In Bankruptcy. On review of decision of referee.
1Opinion of the Court
TOULMIN, District Judge.
The first contention on the part of the respondent is that some of the original petitioners could not institute this proceeding on the ground or suggestion that said petitioners connived at a “fraud on the law,” or attempted a fraud on the *639other creditors. “It is well settled that creditors who have participated in the act of bankruptcy complained of * * * cannot after-wards be petitioning creditors in bankruptcy; nor can a creditor who connives at a ‘fraud on the law’ or attempts a fraud on the other creditors institute involuntary proceedings in bankruptcy.”…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- In re MackeyDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1901
- Ludowici Roofing Tile Co. v. Pennsylvania Inst. for Instruction of the BlindCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1903
- Knapp v. S. Jarvis Adams Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1905
- In re StoutDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1900
- In re WaxelbaumDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Canute Steamship Co. v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Burkett v. Simmons Hardware Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Guterman v. C. D. Parker & Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1936
- In re BerthoudDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1916
- In re BurgDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1917
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.