Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

116 F. 47

Docket No. 803.

In re Moebius

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court · decided 1902-06-06

<p>1. Bankruptcy—Claims—Amendment of Proofs.</p> <p>The right to amend a proof of claim is granted with great liberality, especially in aid of a meritorious claim, but an amendment cannot be allowed the effect of which will be to permit the proving of a claim after the expiration of the year to which such proof is limited by Bankr. Act, § 57n.</p> <p>¶l. See Bankruptcy, vol. 6, Cent. Dig. § 523.</p>

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1902-06-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1930

1 federal appellate · 11 district ·

801902191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Bankruptcy—Claims—Amendment of Proofs.

¶2The right to amend a proof of claim is granted with great liberality, especially in aid of a meritorious claim, but an amendment cannot be allowed the effect of which will be to permit the proving of a claim after the expiration of the year to which such proof is limited by Bankr. Act, § 57n.

¶3¶l. See Bankruptcy, vol. 6, Cent. Dig. § 523.

¶4In Bankruptcy. On certificate from referee.

¶5Fred. J. Knaus, for creditors.

¶6Martin H. Stutzbach, for trustee.

¶7*48J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

¶8The right to amend, and especially in aid of a meritorious claim, is granted by the courts with great liberality, but there is a limit beyond which we cannot go. That limit, I think, has been reached in the case now being considered. If the petitioner’s motion to amend his original proof of claim should be granted, he would in fact be given leave to make proof of a debt in violation of section 57n, Bankr. Act, which provides that “claims shall not be proved against a bankrupt estate subsequent to one year after the adjudication.” Ordinarily it may be true that, where the right to prove exists, a motion to amend would probably be allowed (In re Myrick, Fed. Cas. No. 10,000), but here the right to prove has been lost.

¶9The referee’s order is affirmed.

/116/f1d/47 · .json · Public domain