Legal Opinion
In re Tidewater Coal Exch.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 3, 1923PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEARNED HAND, District Judge.
The question is in two parts: First, whether the Director General has a claim for coal delivered to the pool on account of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, as that account stood on March 1, 1920; second, whether the Director General is a direct creditor of the bankrupt under the demurrage agreements signed by it in August, 1917, with the several tidewater railroads. The referee disallowed the first claim and allowed the second.
The Claim for Coal Credits.
This claim turns upon whether at the termination of federal control on February 29, 1920,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. FinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. York & Whitney Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. . TitusNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- In re HawksDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- CSX Transportation Co. v. Novolog Bucks CountyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Middle Atlantic Conference v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1972
- Earle v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1942
- Nicholson Transit Co. v. Nicholson Universal S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Grangers' Business Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.