In re Culgin-Pace Contracting Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the Culgin-Pace Contracting Company, alleged bankrupt.
1Opinion of the Court
MORTON, District Judge.
[1] Upon the facts stated in the referee’s report, the Culgin-Pace Contracting Company was “engaged principally in manufacturing.” Friday v. Hall & Kaul Co., 216 U. S. 449, 30 Sup. Ct. 261, 54 L. Ed. 562, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 475. It is therefore subject to adjudication under the Bankruptcy Act as it stood at the filing of this petition on September 21, 1908.
*246[2] The only other question is whether the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing a bankruptcy petition (sworn to on September 9, 1908) brought against this…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Stark v. StarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Perry v. . DickersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Friday v. Hall & Kaul Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Lumber Co. v. BuchtelSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Hoseason v. KeegenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re Hibel Fur Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1928