Legal Opinion
In re Baltimore Pearl Hominy Co.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided January 7, 1923PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SOPER, District Judge.’
The matter for determination is the character of the claims of the Union Trust Conjpany and other banks against the bankrupt estate. The claimants contend that they are entitled to priority of payment out of the assets in the hands of the trustees for the sum of $35,000, advanced by them for the purpose of making a payment to the United States in a compromise settlement of its claim for federal taxes against the Baltimore Pearl Hominy Company before it was adjudicated bankrupt.
The facts are that on July 10, 1920, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue addressed a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. State Bank of NCSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Cook County National Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Beaston v. Farmers' Bank of Del.Supreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Dayton v. StanardSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Title Guarantee Trust Co. v. . HavenNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Camden v. Fink Coal & Coke Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1928
- Sherman B. Ruth, Inc. v. O.S v. the Marie & WinifredDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1957
- United States v. Crosland Const. Co.District Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1954
- Clough v. Superior Equipment Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1931
- Weiprecht v. RippleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958