Engel v. Bailey
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Facts agreed. The principal defendants, copartners in business at Milo, Piscataquis county, were adjudged insolvents, upon a petition in the name of the firm, Bailey & Parker, but signed by Parker only, and filed on the 12th day of August, 1887. A warrant was issued upon said petition without notice to Bailey of the pendency of the petition. Bailey has never appeared either by himself or attorney in any of the proceedings, and has never been cited to appear.
Read the full summary
Facts agreed. The principal defendants, copartners in business at Milo, Piscataquis county, were adjudged insolvents, upon a petition in the name of the firm, Bailey & Parker, but signed by Parker only, and filed on the 12th day of August, 1887. A warrant was issued upon said petition without notice to Bailey of the pendency of the petition. Bailey has never appeared either by himself or attorney in any of the proceedings, and has never been cited to appear. Parker has been granted his discharge. The trustees are the assignees of the estate of the insolvents; and have paid out about $800,00…
1Opinion of the CourtVirgin, J.
The principal defendants in each of these cases were copartners doing business in the firm name of Bailey & Parker.
In August, 1887, Parker, by the direction of Bailey, filed a petition in insolvency in the court of insolvency, signed in the name of the firm. A warrant thereupon issued without any official notice on Bailey, and the persons named as trustees in this action were appointed assignees of the estate.
The assignees received several hundred dollars of assets from which they paid out about $800 on claims entitled to priority.
In Engel’s case, the plaintiff did not appear or prove his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Havens & Dorr v. HusseyNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- Taylor v. MoranCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862
- Kirby v. IngersollMichigan Supreme Court · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gosselin v. WomackSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1869