In re Hudson Porcelain Co.

Citations

• 225 F. 325
• 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1261

Syllabus

<p>1. Bankruptcy ísv>310—Proof op Claim—Allowance—“Duly Proved.” .</p> <p>A proof of claim, which does not comply with, Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 511, § 57, suMs. “a,” “b,” 30 Stat. 560 (Comp. St. 1913, § 8641), as to the statement of the claim and its consideration, is not prima facie evidence of the allegations therein made, and should not be allowed, in the absence of Impeaching evidence, for section 57, snbd. “d,” declaring that claims which have been duly proved shall be allowed, impliedly requires the rejection of others.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 527; Dee. Dig. <3=»310.]</p> <p><§x^>For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBBR, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>2. Bankruptcy <®=>330—Proof of Claim—Sufficiency.</p> <p>A .proof of claim recited that the consideration, was for legal services in specified months, and that the claimant appeared for the corporate bankrupt during those months, and as its counsel prepared the schedules filed. Bankr. Act, § 57, subds. “a,” “b,” require proofs of claim to set forth the consideration therefor, and, if founded upon instruments in writing, to set forth such instruments. Held that, as the statement Of claim and its consideration must he sufficiently specific to enable the trustee and creditors to make proper investigation as to its fairness and legality without inconvenience, the proof of claim was not sufficient, as it failed to disclose the nature of the services rendered, the time consumed, or give any standard as to their value.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 517, 519, 521; Dec. Dig. <®=>330.]</p> <p><g^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>