|
|
Birkett v. Columbia Bank, 195 U.S. 345 (1904)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Birkett v. Columbia Bank, 195 U.S. 345 (1904)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 195 U.S. 332, click here.
Birkett v. Columbia Bank No. 26 Argued October 28, 1904 Decided November 28, 1904 195 U.S. 345
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Actual knowledge of the proceedings contemplated by section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act is a knowledge in time to avail a creditor of the benefits of the law and to give him an equal opportunity with other creditors, and not a knowledge that may come so late as to deprive him of participation in the administration of the affairs of the estate or to deprive him of dividends.
This is an action on a promissory note for $750. The defense is discharge in bankruptcy. The making of the note was admitted, and the only question presented is the effect of the discharge.
The facts as found by the court are: plaintiff in error and one Calvin Russell, who died before the commencement of this action, were partners, doing business under the name of Russell & Birkett, and in that name made and delivered to the Manhattan Railway Advertising Company a promissory note for $750. The latter company indorsed the note to defendant in error, of which Russell & Birkett had knowledge before its maturity. On the April 13, 1899, the firm of Russell & Birkett and plaintiff in error, upon their own petition, were adjudicated bankrupts in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and were discharged September 12, 1899. The claim of defendant in error was not scheduled, either as a debt of the firm or of plaintiff in error, in time for proof and allowance with the name of the defendant in error, though defendant in error was known, at the time of filing the schedules, to be the owner and holder thereof by plaintiff in error, and that defendant in error had no notice or actual knowledge or other knowledge of the proceedings in bankruptcy prior to the discharge of the bankrupts. No notice of the proceedings in bankruptcy was at any time given to defendant in error by or by the direction of the bankrupts or either of them. It was decided that the claim of defendant in error was not barred by the discharge in bankruptcy, and judgment was directed for defendant in error.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Birkett v. Columbia Bank, 195 U.S. 345 (1904) in 195 U.S. 345 195 U.S. 346–195 U.S. 349. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NDM9RY4RZJ2TGD9.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Birkett v. Columbia Bank, 195 U.S. 345 (1904), in 195 U.S. 345, pp. 195 U.S. 346–195 U.S. 349. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NDM9RY4RZJ2TGD9.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Birkett v. Columbia Bank, 195 U.S. 345 (1904). cited in 1904, 195 U.S. 345, pp.195 U.S. 346–195 U.S. 349. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NDM9RY4RZJ2TGD9.
|