Legal Opinion

In re Hapgood

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided January 15, 1873PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The petition by the Manchester Shoe & Leather Company of New Hampshire against the two defendants, doing business at Boston under the firm name of Hapgood & Co., alleged a debt due from said firm to the petitioners of about $1,000; and that said defendants, being insolvent, did, on the twenty-seventh day of December, 1872, and on the fifteenth day of January, 1873, make certain payments to two of their creditors by way of preference.

Read the full summary

The petition by the Manchester Shoe & Leather Company of New Hampshire against the two defendants, doing business at Boston under the firm name of Hapgood & Co., alleged a debt due from said firm to the petitioners of about $1,000; and that said defendants, being insolvent, did, on the twenty-seventh day of December, 1872, and on the fifteenth day of January, 1873, make certain payments to two of their creditors by way of preference. The defendants filed a general denial of the acts of bankruptcy, and demanded a jury trial, which was afterwards waived, and the case was heard by the court. It…

1Opinion of the Court

ROWELL, District Judge.

I have decided that when one creditor stands by and sees a settlement made with the others, under such circumstances that his assent to the compromise is to be presumed, he is estopped to rely on that compromise as an act of bankruptcy. In re Massachusetts Brick Co. [Case No. 9,259). I shall probably adhere to that doctrine until a higher court has held it to be erroneous. But as this case was not argued nor placed upon the ground of the agreement concerning the eighty per cent, and the evidence upon that point may not have been fully developed, I must consider the…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kullman & Co. v. WoolleyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936
  2. Hewitt v. Boston Straw Board Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  3. In re HowesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
  4. John S. Brittain Dry-goods Co. v. BertenshawSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
  5. In re StevensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API