In re Hildebrant
District Court, N.D. New York
In Bankruptcy. This is a motion on the part of the trustee in banlo ruptcy herein to confirm the report of William Lansing, referee in bankruptcy, to whom it was referred, as special master, to take evidence and report, with findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to the title of the petitioner in this proceeding, the A. M. Church Company, to certain goods in the possession of the trustee, and the right of said company to have such goods turned over and delivered to said…
Read the full summary
In Bankruptcy. This is a motion on the part of the trustee in banlo ruptcy herein to confirm the report of William Lansing, referee in bankruptcy, to whom it was referred, as special master, to take evidence and report, with findings of fact and conclusions of law, as to the title of the petitioner in this proceeding, the A. M. Church Company, to certain goods in the possession of the trustee, and the right of said company to have such goods turned over and delivered to said petitioner.
1Opinion of the Court
RAY, District Judge.
Prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy herein, and between the 3d day of October, 1900, and the 31st day of January, 1901, the petitioner, the Andrew M. Church Company, sold and delivered to the said firm of Hildebrant & Buchanan certain goods and merchandise, for which it made and verified its claim against the bankrupt estate in the words and figures following:
“Troy, N. Y.,-, 189-.
“Hildebrant & Bucbanan in acc’t witb tbe Andrew M. Church Co.
“(Cloaks and Shawls.) Importers and Dealers in Dry Goods, Hosiery, Notions, & Fancy Goods.
“New York Office 83, 85 & 87…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Terry v. . MungerNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Fowler v. . Bowery Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Conrow v. . LittleNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Acer v. . HotchkissNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Mills v. . ParkhurstNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Standard Varnish Works v. HaydockCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1906
- In re KenyonDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1907
- In re MenzinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1916
- In re KaplanDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1916