In re Lacey
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
[In review of the action of the district court of the United States for the district of Connecticut.] 3 [Lacey, Downs & Co. were, on the 2d day of June. 1S78, engaged in manufacturing felt hats in Danbury, Conn., and were indebted about seventy thousand dollars, and had assets of about thirty thousand dollars.
Read the full summary
[In review of the action of the district court of the United States for the district of Connecticut.] 3 [Lacey, Downs & Co. were, on the 2d day of June. 1S78, engaged in manufacturing felt hats in Danbury, Conn., and were indebted about seventy thousand dollars, and had assets of about thirty thousand dollars. On that day the National Pahquioque Bank of Danbury, creditors to about the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars, upon a writ returnable to the Fairfield county superior court at its August term, 1873, served by one Heath, a deputy sheriff of Fail-field county, attached substantially…
1Opinion of the Court
WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge.
On the 7th of June, 1873, George King, a creditor of the copartnership firm of Lacey. Downs & Co., filed against them, in the district court, his petition, alleging certain acts of bankruptcy, and praying that the said firm, and the co-partners therein, be adjudged bankrupt. Upon filing the said petition the usual order was made by the court, requiring the alleged bankrupts to show cause why such adjudication should not be made, which order was returnable on the lGth of the- said month of June; and. at the same time, a warrant was issued to the marshal, directing him…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re Levi & KlauberCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1905
- In re RobertsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1880