In re Lathrop, Haskins & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
In the matter of bankruptcy proceeding’s of Eathrop, Haskins & Co. On petition to review a referee’s order directing one Popper to answer certain questions propounded to him at a meeting of creditors.
1Opinion of the Court
HOUGH, District Judge.
It plainly appears from the evidence that the bankrupts were interested (with others) in what is commonly known as a “pool” in certain stock colloquially described as “Hocking Coal & Iron.” The object of these joint adventurers was to control the market and advance the quoted price for said stock until such time as the public should become sufficiently interested therein to hid and pay a price satisfactory to the members of the pool. That the interest of the bankrupt in this business enterprise constituted property is not denied.
Another party interested in this scheme…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re FoerstDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1899
- In re HorganCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1899
- Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907
3Cited by3 opinions
- Henry K. Wampole & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
- Standard Aero Corp. of New York v. LeonardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1921
- Commercial Bank v. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1935