Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

98 F. 869

In re Langslow

New York Northern District Court

Decided April 7, 1899.)

New York Northern District Court · decided 1899-04-07

<p>Bankruptcy — Filing Feb — Partnership Petition.</p> <p>Upon the voluntary application of a partnership for the benefit of the bankruptcy act, only one petition need he filed, and all that is done thereupon constitutes but one proceeding, although it includes granting a discharge to each of the partners; and only one deposit of the filing fee of $25 required by the act is necessary. It cannot be demanded of the partners, as a prerequisite to discharging them, that they should each separately deposit a like fee.</p>

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-04-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1943

1 federal appellate · 4 district ·

10189919001910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1Bankruptcy — Filing Feb — Partnership Petition.

¶2Upon the voluntary application of a partnership for the benefit of the bankruptcy act, only one petition need he filed, and all that is done thereupon constitutes but one proceeding, although it includes granting a discharge to each of the partners; and only one deposit of the filing fee of $25 required by the act is necessary. It cannot be demanded of the partners, as a prerequisite to discharging them, that they should each separately deposit a like fee.

¶3In Bankruptcy-

¶4Perkins & Hays, for petitioner.

¶5Quincy Van Voorhis, in pro. per.

¶6CQXE, District Judge.

¶7The question involved is whether the court can withhold discharges from these bankrupts, who were co-partners and who filed a partnership petition, upon the ground that they have not, severally, paid the fees required by the act. I do not see how the court can follow the course suggested by the learned referee. The law permits a partnership petition to be filed even after dissolution. Section 5. Section 40 and general order No. 85, 82 C. C. A. xxxiv., 89 Fed. xiii., recognize no other compensation to the referee, where there are no assets, than the preliminary fee deposited with the clerk. That this fee is wholly inadequate in many cases cannot be denied, but the remedy, of course, is with congress. The court has no power to enlarge the statutory fee. A partnership petition is but one proceeding. Only one petition (in triplicate) need be filed. The clerk has no authority to demand more than the statutory fees. The adjudication and reference follow as a matter of course, and the referee must proceed as required by the law, general orders and rules. The question is determined by the fact that, in contemplation of law, there is but one petition and one proceeding.

/98/f1d/869 · .json · Public domain