In re Hurst
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
[In review of the action of the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan.] [In bankruptcy. In the matter of James T. Hurst.] This was a proceeding under the bankrupt act between debtor and creditor, to compromise the former’s indebtedness.
Read the full summary
[In review of the action of the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan.] [In bankruptcy. In the matter of James T. Hurst.] This was a proceeding under the bankrupt act between debtor and creditor, to compromise the former’s indebtedness. A “resolution of composition” having been adopted by which the creditors agreed “to accept the sum of twenty cents on the dollar in full satisfaction and discharge, provided the said sum be paid as follows; six-month notes of the debtor indorsed by,” etc., “as security,” the district court on the motion made an order to…
1Opinion of the Court
EMMONS, Circuit Judge.
The only error urged upon this bill of review is that the resolution of composition provides for a payment in indorsed promissory notes, whereas the statute requires it shall be in money. Literally interpreted it is subject to the criticism made. It does provide expressly that the payment shall be made by the delivery of certain indorsed promissory notes. If we can not construe this to mean a payment in money, the “resolution” must be rejected. We think, without any violation of familiar rules of interpretation, we can read' this language as importing such payment,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Tobey v. BarberNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Johnson v. WeedNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Jackson ex dem. Sternberg v. ShafferNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Roget v. MerritNew York Supreme Court · 1804
- Matteson v. EllsworthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re EisenbergDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1906
- In re Wayne Realty Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1921
- Pupke v. ChurchillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- Harrison v. GambleMichigan Supreme Court · 1888