Obrázky stránek

claimant testifying to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, and setting forth his means of knowledge; or if in a foreign country, the oath of the creditor may be taken before any minister, consul, or vice-consul of the United States; and the court may, if it shall see fit, require or receive further pertinent evidence either for or against the admission of the claim. Corporations may verify their claims by the oath or solemn affirmation of their president, cashier, or treasurer. If the proof is satisfactory to the register or the commissioner, it shall be signed by the deponent, and delivered or sent by mail to the assignee, who shall examine the same and compare it with the books and accounts of the bankrupt, and shall register, in a book to be kept by him for that purpose, the names of creditors who have proved their claims, in the order in which such proof is received, stating the time of receipt of such proof, and the amount and nature of the debts, which books shall be opened to the inspection of all the creditors.]

The bankrupt is required to examine the correctness of all proofs of claims filed against his estate. (Sec. 7-3.) From a judgment allowing or rejecting a claim or debt of $500 or over, an appeal may be taken to the circuit court of appeals (sec. 25, a); and if the amount in controversy exceeds $2,000 it may be taken from the circuit court of appeals to the Supreme Court, or where a justice of the Supreme Court certifies that the determination of the questions involved is essential to a uniform construction of the act. (Sec. 25, b.) U. S. Rev. Stat., § 1778, and the act of August 15, 1876 (1 Supp. R. S. 123), make provision for the persons before whom oaths may be administered.

Proofs of claims and other papers filed subsequently to the reference, except such as call for action by the judge, may be filed either with the referee or with the clerk. (Orders XX.) Provision with reference to the proof of claims may also be found in Orders XXI.

How proof must be given.- A debt is to be considered as proved when it is duly authenticated and sent to the assignee or to the register. (Ex parte Harris et al., 16 N. B. R. 432; Fed. Cas. 6109.) In a proof of debt the creditor should set forth at least one full Christian name of the affiant and of the bankrupt, in addition to the surname. (In re Valentine, 12 N. B. R. 389; 4 Biss. 317; 1 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 101; Fed. Cas. 16812.) The court has no discretion to refuse to receive and file a proof of debt which appears on its face to have been taken by a proper officer and to be correct in form and in substance. (In re Merrick, 7 N. B. R. 459; Fed. Cas. 9163.) Informality in proofs is not material where the creditor, as a witness, has sworn positively of his own knowledge. (McKinsey et al. v. Harding, 4 N. B. R. 10; Fed. Cas. 8866.) A deposition in support of a proof of claim in involuntary bankruptcy must show whether the claim

is secured or unsecured. (Cunningham v. Cady, 13 N. B. R. 525; 8 Chi. Leg. News, 165; 4 Am. Law Rec. 510; Fed. Cas. 3480.)

Where the consideration for a note presented for proof is set forth in a creditor's deposition as goods, wares, merchandise, etc., there should be stated the kind of goods, the quantity, the price, the date of the transaction and the time of delivery, if delivered at one time, or, if delivered continuously through a period of time, that period should be stated. (In re Elder, 3 N. B. R. 165; 1 Sawy. 73; 17 Pittsb. Leg. J. 178; 3 Amer. Law T. 140; 2 Chi. Leg. News, 241; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 198; Fed. Cas. 4326.) For the holder of the paper of a bankrupt to be able to prove his claim, he must show that he paid value when he took it, or incurred some responsibility, or relinquished some right, or granted some indulgence, or discharged a precedent debt, upon the faith and credit of the paper. (In re Howard, Cole & Co., 6 N. B. R. 372; Fed. Cas. 6751.)

If no proof of loss has been furnished an insurance company or its assignee, but the assured proves his loss as a debt against the estate in bankruptcy, the claim will only be allowed upon proof that the company while solvent waived such proof. The assignee has no power to waive the proof. (In re Firemen's Ins. Co., 8 N. B. R. 123; 5 Chi. Leg. News, 265; Fed. Cas. 4796.)

Proof of debt in a foreign country must be taken in accordance with the requirements of the United States statutes. (In re Robert v. Lynch et al., 16 N. B. R. 38; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 205; Fed. Cas. 8635.)

What must be proved.— All claims against the estate of a bankrupt, however evidenced, must be proved (Blum v. Ellis, 13 N. B. R. 345); and he cannot legally be discharged, where the proofs of debt have been lost, until they are supplied. (In re Friedlob, 19 N. B. R. 122; 11 Chi. Leg. News, 189; Fed. Cas. 5118.)

By whom proof must be made.-Generally speaking, only the holder and owner of a claim can make proof. (In re Ford et al., 18 N. B. R. 426; Fed. Cas. 4932.) A mere agent, holding negotiable paper, cannot prove it, under objection, excepting in the name and for the benefit of the real owner, and therefore not at all when the owner is in a situation to make the proof himself (In re Saunders, 13 N. B. R. 164; 2 Lowell, 444; Fed. Cas. 12371); but proof of debt may be made by an agent who has had exclusive charge of the same, and knows personally all the facts required to be sworn to in proving it, the creditor himself having no personal knowledge thereof. (In re Watrous et al., 14 N. B. R. 258; 3 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 180; Fed. Cas. 17270; R. S. 5078.) Mere absence from the state or the locality where the proof is made is not alone cause for proof by an agent. (In re Jackson et al., 14 N. B. R. 449; 7 Biss. 280; Fed. Cas. 7123.) The absence of a claimant which will render a proof of debt by an agent admissible must be "from the United States; " nor will his agent's oath, that he is better acquainted with the facts than his principal, render the

agent's deposition alone admissible as proof. (In re Whyte, 9 N. B. R. 267; Fed. Cas. 17606.)

A receiver of property of a creditor of a bankrupt is an assignee of the debt due such creditor, and as such assignee may prove it, but if assigned before proof, the proof must be supported by deposition. (In re Mills, 17 N. B. R. 472; Fed. Cas. 9612.) A person who has acquired claims against a bankrupt by purchase, in an endeavor to settle the matter out of court will be allowed to prove these claims as though he were the original creditor. (In re Pease, 6 N. B. R. 173; Fed. Cas. 10880.) Where a note is held by a party as trustee for another, it must be proved by the holder as trustee or by the real owner. (Ex parte Dreyfus, 13 N. B. R. 43; 2 Lowell, 305; 1 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 296; Fed. Cas. 8043.)

Where there is presented for proof against a bankrupt's estate an account for goods sold to the bankrupt by a third person, which account is assigned for value to the one presenting it, before bankruptcy, the deposition of such party only need be produced. (In re Fortune, 3 N. B. R. 83.) Before whom proof must be made.-Where the proof of a debt is taken before the attorney of the creditor it is inadmissible. (In re Nebe, 11 N. B. R. 289; Fed. Cas. 10073.) A notary public before whom proof is made must authenticate the same by his official seal as well as his signature, and a seal used in common with others will not answer. (In re Nebe, 11 N. B. R. 289; Fed. Cas. 10073. For contra see In re Strauss, 2 N. B. R. 18; Fed. Cas. 13532; and In re Haley, 2 N. B. R. 13; Fed. Cas. 5918.) It is sufficient if a creditor prove his claim before a notary public, who subscribes the jurat with his name, the words "notary public," and the county and state, and on the paper containing his certificate is impressed a seal containing the words "Notarial Seal,” and the county and state, there being in the center of the seal a device impressed in the paper. (In re William W. Phillips, 14 N. B. R. 219; 8 Chi. Leg. News, 409; 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 306; Fed. Cas. 11098.)

Although bankruptcy proceedings have been stayed, the sole power to admit claims against the bankrupt's estate is not vested in the trustee, but they may and should be proved before the register. (In re Bakewell, 4 N. B. R. 199; 18 Pittsb. Leg. J. 289; 3 Pittsb. Rep. 323; Fed. Cas. 788.) When proof may be made.- Where an assignee's discharge is improperly made and is set aside, claims may be proved subsequent to such discharge. (In re Maybin, 15 N. B. R. 468; Fed. Cas. 9337.) Proofs of claim filed after election for an assignee in bankruptcy will not entitle a claimant to vote thereon to change the result of an election appealed from. (In re Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railroad and Iron Co., 7 N. B. R. 376; Fed. Cas. 7997.) A creditor who proves his claim after the time for the hearing of an application for discharge cannot be heard in opposition to the application, nor can his debt be counted among the claims proved so as to affect the discharge. (In re Borst, 11 N. B. R. 96; Fed. Cas. 1666.) A plaintiff in a suit to enforce a lien against property of a bankrupt, pending at the commencement of proceedings in bank

ruptcy, may, before the conclusion of such suit, prove his claim and have the same allowed by the court in bankruptcy as a valid lien for the full amount. (Bucknam v. Dunn et al., 16 N. B. R. 470; 2 Hask. 215; Fed. Cas. 2096.)

Where an attorney files a petition with a register, setting up that prior to the bankruptcy he performed services for the bankrupt, for which he holds a note past due, and asks that the assignee be directed to pay him out of the funds for dividend, but he did not present the claim on the day appointed for the declaration of dividend, the fund cannot be re-opened to pay the claim. (In re Smith, 15 N. B. R. 97; 1 Tex. Law J. 42; Fed. Cas. 12989.)

What is not proof.—A creditor who, after making his deposition to prove his debt, retains possession of the deposition and does not allow it to pass into the hands of the assignee in bankruptcy, is not a creditor who has proven his debt. (In re Sheppard, 1 N. B. R. 115; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 49; Fed. Cas. 12753.) A deposition setting forth a claim against a bankrupt for unliquidated damages for a breach of contract, which does not appear in the bankrupt's schedules, is not proof thereof, unless the amount is fixed by assessment, application for which must be made by the creditor. (In re Clough, 2 N. B. R. 59; 2 Ben. 508; 16 Pittsb. Leg. J. 25; Fed. Cas. 2905.)

Postponement of proof.-Proof of a claim may be postponed until after the choice of an assignee. (In re Smith, 1 N. B. R. 25; 2 Ben. 113; Fed. Cas. 12971.) Where the officers of a bankrupt corporation present large claims, the register should so postpone the proof thereof. (In re Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railroad and Iron Co., 7 N. B. R. 376; Fed. Cas. 7997.) When it appears at the first meeting of creditors that the names of certain creditors by whom claims against the estate are presented do not appear upon the schedule, the proof of such claims should be so postponed. (In re Milwain, 12 N. B. R. 358; 1 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 76; Fed. Cas. 9623.) Where a prima facie case is made out that certain creditors have received preferences, or that their claims have been purchased with money belonging to the bankrupt and in collusion with him, the proof of such claims will be so postponed (In re Herrman & Herrman, 3 N. B. R. 153; Fed. Cas. 6426), as will a claim founded upon a large open account between the parties, and which is in dispute between them, as it is of a doubtful character. (In re Jones, 2 N. B. R. 20; Fed. Cas. 7447.) The proof of a claim which, at the first meeting of creditors, was postponed until the election of an assignee, is to be treated in all respects as if it had not been tendered and postponed. (In re Herrman et al., 3 N. B. R. 161; 4 Ben. 126; Fed. Cas. 6425.)

Amendment of proof.- A bankrupt court may allow proofs of debt to be amended, and in cases of mistake or ignorance, whether of fact or law, will generally exercise that power in the absence of fraud and when all parties can be placed in statu quo, if the error had not occurred, and where justice seems to demand that it should be done. (In re Parkes, 10

N. B. R. 82; Fed. Cas. 10754.) A creditor, after examination before the register touching his claim, may file supplemental proof of claim, corresponding with the facts shown by his testimony. (In re Montgomery, 3 N. B. R. 108; Fed. Cas. 9729.) A creditor having security, and proving his demand in ignorance of his privilege, and omitting to mention his security, may be allowed, in the absence of fraud, to amend his proof. (In re McConnell, 9 N. B. R. 387; 10 Phila. 287; 31 Leg. Int. 61; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 107; Fed. Cas. 8712.) A deposition at the re-examination of an allowed claim may be filed with the same effect as if originally made as a deposition (In re Baxter et al., 18 N. B. R. 560; Fed. Cas. 1121); but a creditor having proved his claim on an old promissory note will not be allowed to amend his proof to show that a new note was given, for which the old note was part consideration, but such new note should be proved independently. (In re Montgomery, 3 N. B. R. 109; Fed. Cas. 9731.) Withdrawal of proof.- Where a creditor makes proof of a claim and makes no mention of security held therefor, the proof being made through inadvertence, he should be given leave to withdraw it. (In re Clark & Bininger, 5 N. B. R. 255; Fed. Cas. 2806.) Where proof is made in ignorance of the security, or even under a mistake in regard to the law in the case, he should be allowed to withdraw it, and then prove as a secured creditor, when no injury has resulted to the unsecured creditor by such improper proof. (In re Jaycox & Green, 8 N. B. R. 241; Fed. Cas. 7242.)

A moiety only of a claim provable.- If the holder of a bill or note neglect to prove against the estate of one party to the note until he has received, or become entitled to receive, a dividend from any other party, he must give credit for what he has already received when he chooses to prove against the remaining party. (Ex parte Talcott, 9 N. B. R. 502; 2 Lowell, 320; Fed. Cas. 13184.) One owning a debt secured by an insurance policy on the life of the bankrupt is entitled to prove the amount of the debt less the surrender value of the policy. (In re Newland, 7 N. B. R. 477; 6 Ben. 342; Fed. Cas. 10170.) Pledgees of promissory notes void between the original parties thereto, which have been pledged to them as collateral security for the payment of an indebtedness, are eutitled to prove so much of the notes as will secure dividends to the full amount of their claim. (Bailey, Ass., v. Nicholas et al., 2 N. B. R. 151; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 60; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 185; Fed. Cas. 741.) Where a claimant, who has for several years held a chattel mortgage executed by the bankrupt, takes possession upon learning of his insolvency, and, within four months of the filing of the petition, sells the property and purchases it at the sale, and the assignee recovers judgment for the value of the property, the plaintiff can only prove for a moiety of his claim. (In re Kaufman et al., 19 N. B. R. 283; 2 N. J. Law T. 231; Fed. Cas. 7627.) Where a creditor, whose debt is secured by a deed of trust upon property of the bankrupt, causes the same to be sold, it being purchased by himself and others, and he, without surrendering his security, appears before the register to prove his demand, he should have his

« PředchozíPokračovat »