The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-01-18
THE INs0LvENr LAW.
Contest of the First Case of Involuntary
insolvency.

10 the Court of Insolvency for this Couuty,in
the case OF Morgan, Butler s. Co. of this city
and Rothwell, Martin s. Co. Of Boston. peti
,itioning creditors against Grin Hawkes. of thi'
city, Judge Cleaves rendered an opinion yes
terday.
On tbs 31st of December last, the said credi
tors filed petition against said Hawkes., rep
resenting that they constituted more than one.
fourth of his creditors and that he was insol-
vent, and prayed that q warrant might issue tt
take possession of his estate. Upon hearing
the warrant was issued. Provision is made 10
the law that upon request of the debtor fuith
er hearing may bs had upon his application
AT this hearing. upon the 18th ct January
Rothwell, Martin & Co., refused to proceed in
the case. and moved 70 have their names strCk
en- from the petition. This was objected to by
their cc-petitoners, and upon this point the
Court says "Rothwell, Martin & Co. are
non-residents of the State. They have volun.
tarily executed this petition and caused its
presentation in Court. Their associate petit
TONERS have relied upon their sincerity and
good faith, aud perhaps, by their action have
been prevented from procuring other creditors
to join them; and by uniting in the petition
they have given their associates standing 10
Court, and inaugurated judicial action in the
premises.
Under such circumstances, to sllo " one petit.
toning creditor. without proof of fraud o,
false representations in obtaining his sigma
ture, to withdraw from the rocee1ings and
leave his associates powerless in the premises
and deprive the Court of its jurisdiction in the
case, would manifestly defeat the just and
equitable purposes of the insolvent law.
In my judgment, it would establish mis-
chievous and dangerous precedent, and open
a broad door for underhand conttivanoes,
fraudulent collision, and illegal preferences.
In practice, it would result in one petitioner
after another disappearing from the petition,
as the exigencies of case required. The in
solvent debtor and preferred creditors, through
secret negotiations and.indirect management,
with the petitioning creditors, could often
times render proceedings under the act of no
effect, and the law would be used as an instru.
ment of advantage and profit to few, other
than for the general good Of all the creditors.
If it is said that the same influences may be
brought tobear before proceedings in insolvency
are instituted, the answer is, that the Court
has nothing to do with the parties before pro-
ceedings are commenced, but after they have
come within its jurisdiction and author ty, a
petitioner will not be allowed to break faith
with his sssociate-and this motion is denied.
Objections were made by the debtor to the
right of nonresident creditors to petition
against insolvent debtors in this State, but the
Court held that non resident creditors, under
the act, could avail themselves of the Courts
of Insolvency in this State.
1t was also claimed that the petition was not
properly executed, being sworn to before q
notary in Massachusetts,, but this and all other
objections were overruled, and the Court find
ing that all the allegations in the petition were
proved, declared the debtor insovent, and re-
fused to revoke the warrant that had Issued.
Messrs Webb and Haskell appeared for the
petitioners, Mr.. A. J. Blethen for debtor, and
John J. Perry for Rothwell, Martin & Co.