Legal Opinion

In re Prospect Worsted Mills

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided January 2, 1904No. 3,941PublishedCited by 6 opinions

In Bankruptcy.

1Opinion of the Court

EOWEEL, District Judge.

The claim of Stoddard, Haserick, Richards & Co., hereinafter called Stoddard, was offered for proof and allowed. The claim was based on several notes made by the Globe Mills payable to the order of the Prospect Mills, and by the latter indorsed to Stoddard. The trustee petitioned that the proof be expunged.

These two mills, incorporated in Massachusetts, and now both in bankruptcy, were owned by Samuel Robinson and his family. He was president, treasurer, and active manager of the Prospect Mills. He was president of the Globe Mills, of which his son Herbert was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Martin v. Niagara Falls Paper Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Beacon Trust Co. v. SoutherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
  3. Germania Safety-Vault & Trust Co. v. BoyntonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
  4. Tod v. Kentucky Union Land Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky · 1893
  5. Murphy v. Arkansas & L. Land & Improvement Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1899

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In re John B. Rose Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
  2. Brown v. American Gas Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. First Nat. Bank v. TownerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
  4. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance v. Realty Development Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1933
  5. In Re Amdur Shoe Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1926

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