The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 6
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
250 FEDERAL REPORTER
SCHALL et al v. CAMORS et al. (two eases).
In re LE MORE et al.
(01Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 17, 1918.)
Nos 8163, 8164.
BANKRUPTCY Y 363---PABTNERSHIP-CLAIMS--IGHT TO PROVE AGAINST Es-
TATES or PARTNERS.
Claimant cashed drafts for a bankrupt partnership, supposed to be
secured by bills of lading, which were forged, and the drafts were not
paid. The drafts were not signed nor negotiated by either partner per-
sonally, although they had knowledge of the fraudulent system of doing
business, and the proceeds were received and used solely for partnership
purposes. Claims on the drafts were proved and allowed against the
partnership estate. Held, under Bankruptcy Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 1 5,
30 Stat. 547 (Comp. St. 1916, 5 9589), which clearly provides for the sepa-
rate administration of estates of a partnership and of the individual part-
ners, with the right of the partnership estate to prove a claim against the
estate of a partner only in case there is a surplus in such estate after
payment of Its own creditors, that claimant could not also prove his debt
against the estates of the partners and share ratably with their creditors,
on the theory that, because of the fraud, his claim was for a tort, for
which the partners were individually liable.
Petition to Superintend and Revise Order of, and Appeal from, the
District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisi-
ana; Rufus E. Foster, Judge.
In the matter of Albert Le More and Ed. E. Carriere, bankrupts;
Frederick Camors and others, trustees. On petition to revise and
appeal by William Schall, Jr., and others, to review an order disallow-
ing their claims. Petition to revise dismissed. Order affirmed on the
Howe, Fenner, Spencer & Cocke, of New Orleans, La., and Rounds,
Hatch, Dillingham & Debevoise and Eugene Congleton, all of New
York City, for petitioners appellants.
J. Blanc Monroe, D. B. H. Chaffe, and Monte M. Lemann, all of
New Orleans, La., for respondents appellees.
Before WALKER and BATTS, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, Dis-
GRUBB, District Judge. These cases were submitted together; No.
3163 being a petition to revise an order of the District Court sitting
in bankruptcy, disallowing a claim against the bankrupt estate, and
No. 3164 being an appeal from' the same order. As appeal is the
proper remedy, the petition to revise is ordered dismissed, at peti-
The appeal presents the question as to whether a claim in its nature
a tort, arising out of a partnership transaction, may be proven against
the individual estates of the partners, when the claim has been filed
and allowed as a claim in contract against the partnership estate. This
involves two questions: (1) Whether a claim in tort is provable at
all, under section 63 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (Comp. St. 191,
9647); and (2) whether, in case of a partnership transaction, it aRay
iFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918., legislative document, 1918; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38821/m1/21/: accessed April 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.