Grant Shoe Co. v. Laird Co.Annotate this Case
203 U.S. 502 (1906)
U.S. Supreme Court
Grant Shoe Co. v. Laird Co., 203 U.S. 502 (1906)
Frederic L. Grant Shoe Company v. W. M. Laird Company
Argued October 26, 1906
Decided December 17, 1906
203 U.S. 502
A judgment of the bankruptcy court that a person against whom a petition has been filed is or is not a bankrupt, based upon the verdict of a jury demanded as of right under § 19 of the Bankruptcy Law, can only be reviewed by this Court by writ of error, and not by appeal.
See 126 F. 576; 130 F. 881.
In July, 1903, the W. M. Laird Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, commenced proceedings in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York to cause the Frederick L. Grant Shoe Company, a corporation doing business in Rochester, New York, to be adjudicated involuntary bankrupts. The petition was solely made by the Laird Company, it averring, among other things, that the shoe company had less than twelve creditors, and that the petitioner was a creditor and had provable unsecured claims against the shoe company amounting in the aggregate to more than five hundred dollars. The nature of the claim was detailed at length, and showed that it was one for unliquidated damages aggregating $3,732.80, asserted to have been suffered by reason of breaches of an alleged express warranty in the sale of merchandise. The alleged bankrupt answered, denying its insolvency and the commission of any of the acts of bankruptcy averred in the petition, and demanded a trial by jury of the said issues. It also denied being indebted in any amount to the petitioner.
Soon afterwards, a motion was made to dismiss the petition on the ground that, because of the nature of the claim held
by the Laird Company, that company was not a creditor and the holder of a provable claim for any amount against the shoe company within the meaning of subdivision b of section 19 of the Bankruptcy Act, and consequently was not entitled to file a petition in bankruptcy against the alleged debtor. The motion to dismiss was denied by the district judge. 125 F. 576. In the order entered, it was directed that the claim of the petitioner be liquidated by the jury at the jury trial demanded by the alleged bankrupt for the determination of the issues as to insolvency and the commission of acts of bankruptcy. On the petition of the alleged bankrupt to review this order, it was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 130 F. 881.
A trial of the issues thus raised was had before a jury in May, 1905, and, as recited in the record,
"at the close of all the evidence, the court having directed the jury to find a verdict that the said alleged bankrupt did, within four months of the filing of the petition herein, commit an act of bankruptcy in that it transferred a portion of its property to the German-American Bank of Rochester, one of its creditors, with the intent to prefer said German-American Bank over its other creditors, and that, at the time of said transfer, said alleged bankrupt was insolvent, and that the petitioner has a provable claim against said alleged bankrupt for damages for the breach of warranty in the sale of shoes, and that the amount of such claim of the petitioner is the sum of $3,454.00, the jury found a verdict accordingly."
An order was thereupon entered adjudicating the shoe company a bankrupt and declaring that the claim of the Laird Company was liquidated at the sum of $3,454.00. The present appeal was then taken.
For the purpose of the appeal, and reciting that it was pursuant to the requirements of General Order in Bankruptcy No. 36, the trial judge made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A single question of jurisdiction was also certified as having been raised at the opening of the hearing in September, 1905, by motion to dismiss, substantially
upon the grounds urged in the previous motion to dismiss, which had been passed upon by the court of appeals.
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.