Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

149 F. 204

Docket No. 1,597.

First Nat. Bank v. Eason

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 29, 1906.)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1906-11-29

<p>Bankruptcy — Provable Claims — Amount of Debt.</p> <p>. A creditor holding the note of a bankrupt, .and, as collateral security therefor, another note on which the bankrupt is also liable, is not entitled to prove his claim against the estate in bankruptcy for both; but only for the amount of the actual indebtedness to him.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 513.]</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1928

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The appellant has two obligations of the bankrupt, one is on a note for $15,000, of which the bankrupt was maker, the other is on an indorsement on a forged note for $15,000, given as collateral to secure the first-mentioned note. The appellant seeks to prove both obligations against the bankrupt’s estate. There was only.one consideration, really only one debt, and the appellant is entitled to only one satisfaction. The payment of either obligation would extinguish the other. The district court held that the appellant could not prove both and thus establish a double liability against the bankrupt’s estate. The decree appealed from is affirmed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hitner v. Diamond State Steel Co.

““A creditor holding the note of a bankrupt, and, as collateral security therefor, another note on which the bankrupt is also liable, is not entitled to prove his claim against the estate in bankruptcy for both, but only for the amount of the actual indebtedness to him.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including In re Battle Island Paper Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1906-11-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bankruptcy — Provable Claims — Amount of Debt.

¶2. A creditor holding the note of a bankrupt, .and, as collateral security therefor, another note on which the bankrupt is also liable, is not entitled to prove his claim against the estate in bankruptcy for both; but only for the amount of the actual indebtedness to him.

¶3[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 513.]

¶4Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas.

¶5Cone Johnson and Jas. M. Edwards, for appellant.

¶6'Ben B. Cain and W. Frank Knox, for appellee.

¶7..Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHERBY, Circuit Judges.

¶8PER CURIAM.

¶9The appellant has two obligations of the bánkrupt, one is on a note of $15,000, of which the bankrupt was maker, the other is on an indorsement on a forged note for $15,000, given as *205collateral to secure the first-mentioned note. The' appellant seeks to prove both obligations against the bankrupt’s estate. There was only-one consideration, really only one debt, and the appellant is entitled to only one satisfaction. The payment of either obligation would extinguish the other. The District Court held that the appellant could not prove both and thus establish a double liability against the bankrupt’s estate.

¶10The decree appealed from is affirmed.

/149/f1d/204 · .json · Public domain