KELLY
v.
CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO. et al.
BIGELOW
v.
KELLY et al., and five other cases.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
July 13, 1936.
July 13, 1936.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, of New York City, and White & Hawx-hurst and Jacobson, Merrick, Nierman & Silbert, all of Chicago, Ill. (Henry A. Stickney and Eugene W. Goodwillie, both of New York City, and Roger Q. White, Lewis F. Jacobson, and Arthur Altschul, all of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for complainant Celia Kelly.
Rosenthal, Hamill & Wormser, of Chicago, Ill., and Hines, Rearick, Dorr & Hammond, of New York City (Charles H. Hamill, of Chicago, Ill., Goldthwaite H. Dorr and William B. Hubbell, both of New York City, and Edmund O. Belsheim, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for cross-complainant appellant Harry A. Bigelow, as Trustee, etc.
Chadbourne, Stanchfield & Levy, of New York City (George W. Whiteside, Louis G. Bissell, W. Hugh Peal, and Ralph D. Ray, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Commercial National Bank & Trust Co.
Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, of New York City (Edward Cornell, Martin A. Schenck, and Orrin G. Judd, all of New York City, of counsel), for Irving Trust Co.
Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner & Reed, of New York City (John W. Davis, Porter R. Chandler, and Judson C. McLester, Jr., all of New York City, of counsel), for Guaranty Trust Co.
Larkin, Rathbone & Perry, of New York City (John M. Perry, Hersey Egginton, Donald C. Muhleman, and Hovey C. Clark, all of New York City, of counsel), for Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
White & Case, of New York City (Vermont Hatch and Adrian L. Foley, both of New York City, of counsel), for Bankers Trust Co.
Samuel A. & Leonard B. Ettelson, of Chicago, Ill., for Advance Corporation and others.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Insull Utility Investments, Inc. (hereafter I. U. I.), issued two sets of debentures in 1929 and 1930. The first issue, for $6,000,000, contained a negative pledge clause; the second issue contained the negative pledge clause and the so-called 50 per cent. clause, both quoted in the margin.* Notwithstanding these clauses, I. U. I. borrowed sums of money of which a total of $15,500,000 is still outstanding, from the appellee...
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.
