In re Liberty Doll Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the Liberty Doll Company, Incorporated. On review of an order of the referee, directing the trustee in bankruptcy to pay to Levison & Co. $2,412.61, and $250 for the fees and disbursements of their attorney, aggregating in all $2,662.61. On February 14, 1916, Devison & Co., as party of the first part, entered into a written agreement with the bankrupt corporation, as party of the second part.
Read the full summary
In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the Liberty Doll Company, Incorporated. On review of an order of the referee, directing the trustee in bankruptcy to pay to Levison & Co. $2,412.61, and $250 for the fees and disbursements of their attorney, aggregating in all $2,662.61. On February 14, 1916, Devison & Co., as party of the first part, entered into a written agreement with the bankrupt corporation, as party of the second part. For the convenience of those interested in the principal question involved, the essential features of the agreement are herewith quite fully set forth. “First. The first…
1Opinion of the CourtMayer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Two questions are in controversy: (1) The validity of the chattel mortgage; and (2) the legal effect of paragraph ninth of the contract. I am satisfied that the mortgage was valid. The testimony of Sugarman, the attorney for Eevison & Co., is clear and convincing in respect of the history and details of the mortgage transaction, and the report of the referee need not be added to in that regard.
[1] Paragraph Ninth. As the bankrupt is a corporation, the trustee, under the New York law, cannot plead usury. The provisions of the ninth paragraph are, however,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- In Re LoneySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Ward v. Hudson River Building Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Caesar v. . RubinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Houghton v. BurdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Cockle v. FlackSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Spiotta v. William H. Wilson, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
- In re Gelino's, Inc.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 1930
- Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. JacobsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920