District Court, S. D. New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
July 11, 1932.
July 11, 1932.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Zalkin & Cohen, of New York City (Israel Akselrod, of New York City, of counsel), for receiver Irving Trust Co.
Caldwalader, Wickersham & Taft, of New York City (M. M. Manning, of New York City, of counsel), for Palmer & Co.
G. W. Goddard, for Irving Trust Co.
Nims & Verdi, of New York City (Edward T. Pierce, of New York City, of counsel), for creditor Charles J. Foley.
Morris F. Goldstein and Percival E. Jackson, both of New York City, for Creditors' Protective Committee.
Gwinn & Pell, of New York City (John B. Butler, Jr., and C. C. Curtis, both of New York City, of counsel), for Utah Southern Oil Co.
John Knight Holbrook, of New York City (Ernest H. Breuer, of New York City, of counsel), for creditor William L. Dixon.
Leonard M. Henkin, of New York City, for creditor Louis Helshewitz.
Otto M. Goldsmith, of New York City, representing claim by assignment.
Javits & Javits, of New York City (J. K. Javits, of New York City, of counsel), for Louis S. and Rose Lasdon, reclamation creditors.
Baldwin, Hutchins & Todd, of New York City (M. G. Herold, of New York City, of counsel), for alleged bankrupts.
Satterlee & Spence, of New York City (Kenneth Walser, of New York City, of counsel), for alleged bankrupts.
Kellogg, Emery & Inness-Brown, of New York City (George Koegler, of New York City, of counsel), for Harold and Alonsita Walker.
Chadbourne, Stanchfield & Levy, of New York City (Martin D. Jacobs, of New York City, of counsel), appearing specially for William E. Telling, a limited partner of Palmer & Co.
Charles A. Loreto, of New York City, for creditor William J. Modon.
W. H. Kellogg, of New York City, for creditor Robert J. Marony.
Beardsley & Taylor, of New York City, for creditor W. W. Ervine.
Ludlow S. Fowler, of New York City, for Thomas P. Fowler, one of alleged bankrupts.
District Court, S. D. New York.
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
The motion to confirm this composition is denied without prejudice to a resubmission to the creditors by the bankrupts of the offer of composition already made, or the submission of any other offer of composition which the bankrupts may deem it advisable to make.
I. Six hundred and thirty-eight claims, aggregating $684,716.86, have been allowed.
Of that number 506 claims, aggregating $456,598.20, have voted in favor of accepting...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
