Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1877-03-07

proVablc against salu bloyui Juugc
Ke,rham delivered the following opin-
ion and decision
"On the llth day Of November, A.
D. 1875, u petition was filed in this
court by a large number of the credi-
tors of Lloyd, praying his adjudication
as u bankrupt, and since that time, be.
fore the Register, supplemental pcti-
ton for the same purpose, the two pc.
titions representing s2O7,572.90. On
the 10th day OF March, A.. d. 1876,
Lloyd filed in court list of creditors
representing in all, debts OF different
descriptions, to the amount of Sl,0l6,.
1926. Attached to his list is his aiii-
davlt, stating inter ala that he, William
NJ. Lloyd, did business at Altoona. Pa,
in the name Of William NJ. Lloyd 4
Co, and at Ebensburg, Pa, in the
name of Lloyd & Co.; and that he and
c. II. Hamilton did business in New
York in the name of Lloyd, Hamilton
d Co.. and that he and d. L. Caldwell
did business at Tyrone, Pa, in the
name of Lloyd, Caldwell & Co.; and
that he and George Huff and W. A.
Watt did business in Latrobe, Pa, as
Lloyd, Huff 4 Watt and that h. and
George Huff and +. d. Kitchell did
business at East Liverpool, o., under
the style Of Huff Il Co. The list OF
debts filed by Lloyd includes the liza.
bilities OF the different firms aforesaid
also n number Of second claims and
the individual Indebtedness Of Lloyd
to the firms aforesaid. 1t appears by
the evidence accompanying the report
that Lloyd and Hamilton dissolved
partnership and settled their partner.
ship affairs between themselves, by
Lloyd taking all the assets and under
taking to pay all the debts and also
that Hamilton is insolvcnt. The Reg.
istcr in his computation rejected all the
liabilities of all the firms, except VIM.
NJ. Lloyd & Co, at Altoona, and Lloyd&
Co., at Ebcnsburg, respectively. Also
all the Indebtedness of Lloyd TO the
different firms also several claims as
secured, and among them n claim OF
the executors of DIR. Alexander John.
son and several other claims for differ
ent persons, and finds the amount OF
individual Indebtedness of Lloyd prov
able to be s5f3, ,2l6.43 and the amount
to be counted, Of which one-third is to
represent or consulate the statutory
quorum, to be si77, ,9iI57; being the
aggregate amount Of the debts over
$3.50 in amount, and this aggregate
amount is owned or held by four hun
dred and tbirty-nine creditors, of whom
one hundred and thirty-three join IN
the petition to hold sl9i, ,753.O7 of said
aggregate, and computes the quorum
by taking one-fourtb of the creditors
whose debts are each over $3.50, anc
one-third of theaggregate of over s25(
each. Thus, ! Of I39, say 10; ] O
s477,944.57-sl59,3 ,314,s5, making Q
surplus of petitioning creditors over q
quorum of sixty.three creditors, who's,
debts are over $3.50, and a surplus val
ne in the aggregate of debts OF over
$3.50, OF s35, 1892. If this is reached
correctly of course thcquorum is mad,
out But Lloyd has excepted to it
and filed no less than thirty exceptions
thereto"
The learned Judge then considers
sixteen OF these exceptions, ovcrrulng
some and sustaining others, and laying
down the law on the points OF contro
versy. The two last considered are the
most important and having omitted
what precedcs them we proceed with
the opinion as follows
Tceaty ffh-Thatthc Register erred
in finding that the pctitioning creditors
constituting onc-fourth in number O
Lloyd's creditors, and the aggregat,
OF their debts amount TO at least one
third of the debts provable against
Lloyd.
TrentySi1h-That the Register err
ed in not finding that the petltioning
creditors did not constitute the statu
tory quorum required TO join in the
petition for the said Lloyd These
two exceptions refer TO the same thing
Tho computation of the legal quorum
adopted the rule laid down in In RI
Hymes 10 b. r., 443, that creditors
whose debts do not exceed two hun
dred and fifty dollars are to be exclud-
cd in the computation as TO the amount,
as well as to the number ofcreditors, and
taking from the petition one.fourth Of
Lloyd's separate creditors whose claims
are above $3.50 each, and whose aggrc.
gate claims amount to one-tbird of the
aggregate Of the debts of over $3.50.
he adopts this as the statutory quorum.
| think he is wrong in this. The only
aggregate for this purpose is the pro
bable debts without reference to their
respective amounts. The statute saws
the debtor shall be adjudicated bank.
rupt on petition Of one or more OF his
creditors, who shall constitute one.
fourth in number, and the aggregate
OF whose dehts, provablo under the
act, amounted to at least one.third OF
the debts provable 1t also contains
this qualification, "And IN computing
the number of creditors aforesaid who
shall join in such petition, creditors
whose respective debts do not exceed
the sum of $3.50, shall not be reckoncd.
But If there be no creditors whose
debts exceed the sum of $3.50, or if the