Ex parte Young
District Court, N.D. Illinois
These questions come up on motion by Sidney A. Kent, the assignee of Peyton R. Chandler, and Chandler, Pomeroy & Co., to expunge the claims of Wm. Young & Co., Bensley & Wagner, and a large number of others of the same character, on what are called “puts.” These claims, having been first allowed pro forma by the register, were referred to him by the court for re-examination under the 34th general order, and the evidence was by him reported to the court.
Read the full summary
These questions come up on motion by Sidney A. Kent, the assignee of Peyton R. Chandler, and Chandler, Pomeroy & Co., to expunge the claims of Wm. Young & Co., Bensley & Wagner, and a large number of others of the same character, on what are called “puts.” These claims, having been first allowed pro forma by the register, were referred to him by the court for re-examination under the 34th general order, and the evidence was by him reported to the court. The facts fully appear in the opinion of the court. (1) It was not necessary that Wm. Young & Co. should have any of the property on hand…
1Opinion of the Court
BLODGETT, District Judge.
It appears from the testimony submitted with the register’s report that in the month of May, 1872, and for several years prior thereto, the bankrupts, Peyton R. Chandler, and the firm of Chandler, Pomeroy & Co., were engaged in the business of buying and selling grain on the Chicago market, and as members of the board of trade of this city; that Chandler, Pomeroy & Co. were brokers and commission merchants, and Peyton R. Chandler dealt mainly on his own account as a capitalist, through Chandler, Pomeroy & Co., who acted as his brokers;. that about the middle of May,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Tatman v. StraderIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
- Cassard v. HinmanThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Garrison v. McGregorIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wolford v. PowersIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Hawley v. BibbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Earl v. HowellCity of New York Municipal Court · 1884