The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1898-11-03
Was La Effect
July First.
THE COURT
Reverses Decision on Bank
ruptcy Ruling.

morgan d stewart, the young lawyers
| in the State Mutual building, who have
appeared for the Parmenter Manufac-
turing Company in the test case as to
! the operation of the national bank
| ruptcy law, scored a pronounced legal
victory yesterday when the supreme
court in its decision in the case of the
Pamenter Manufacturing Company VS..
H. Warren Hamilton ct ais, dismissed
the demurrer of the defendants, hold
ing that 1.-THE court of insolvency had
no jurisdiction to entertain a petition
for the commencement of insolvent
proceedings, filed after July l."
This decision is of far reaching i'm
portance to the lawyers of the state,
and the matter win be carried further
so that the United States supreme court
will be called upon to decide as to the
operation of the national bankruptcy
law.
Property interests throughout the diff
ferent counties of the state are affected
by the decision of the state supreme
court so far as they have been in any
way related with insolvency estates
where the cases have come before the
county insolvency courts subsequent to
July l, and while in Worcester county
four or five and are of minor import
ance, there are cases of greater magni-
tude In other counties of the state.
where the full force of the decision will
be felt more or less keenly.
In the case in question, H. Warren
Hamilton and others, creditors of the
Parmenter Manufacturing Company.
OF Brookteld, filed a petition in the
local court of insolvency August 1
against the Parmenter company as an
insolvent debtor
When the first hearing was held Nor
gan & Stewart, counsel for the Parmen-
ter company, filed a motion for the dis
missal of the petition, on the ground
that the court of insolvency had no
jurisdiction in the matter, and that the
petition should have been filed in the
United States circuit court.
The motion was overruled and
Deputy Sheriff Ranger was
appointed messenger to take
charge of the property. Sept. 12 coun-
sci for the Parmenter company
brought a bill in equity in the SUI
preme court, praying that the case be
dismissed, to which bill a demurrer
was filed by counsel for the creditors.
A hearing was held before Justice
Lathrop, who declined to issue a tenn
porary injunction restraining the mes
senger from taking possession of the
property, and the case was reserved
for the full bench, the argument be-
ing made at the October sitting in
Worcester.
In the meantime. John ]. Pew Of
I Gloucester, who had attached the Par
menter company for SIS, 900 before the
insolvency proceedings began. secured
an execution from the Suffolk county
court, and the property has neen sold.
At the time of the sale, John Muicahey
and John Fl. LaFaveur, assignees in
the case, sought to have. the sale
stopped on the ground that Sheriff
Tarbell, who had the writ o1 execution
had no authority to make the sale, and
as the sale continued, he was sued in
an action of tort for $4,000 for alleged
conversion.
The suit was returnable in Deem
Der, but by the decision of the supreme
court in holding that the insolvency
proceedings were void, the suit for al
legged conversion will be dropped and
! disappear from the docket.
The case at issue involves many fine
points. By the terms of the supreme
| court decision, the national bankruptcy
law superseded the state laws July list.
the court holding that all insolvency
proceedings after that date are void.
Accordingly, there are several cases in
the local court of insolvency, in which
the proceedings by this decision are
made entirely void
Among the cases in which petitions
have been filed since July 1st are those
OF NJ ]. Keefe, Leominster, filed
July 18th, Henry W. Emery.
Thompson, Leominster, July 5th
ana CHARLES H. Grout of this CITY.
BY the supreme court ruling. these
cases are as if they had never been.
The proceedings in the local court are
Illegal and accordingly all the trans
Ter OF property and other acts in con-
nection with the cases, are void.
While no great amount is involved in
the worcester county cases, there are
cases in other county courts where
large amounts are at stake, and where
considerable litigation may result from
the complicated state Of affairs into
which the decision throws those cases
IN which the petitions were fled sub
sequent to July LIST and further pro-
ceedings have been held.
Nearly all the Judges of courts of in
solyency in this state have held with
Judge Forbes that the law
as to voluntary insolvency
petitions went into effect August
LIST, and that the provision as to invol-
untary petitions November LIST. Under
this Interpretation of the law. Judges
=
solvency until a short time ago. and
also voluntary petitions a little less re-
Gently. AS q. result of this judicial in
depreciation on the part of the insol-
veflcy judges, much confusion is liable
to result.
However, there is yet another insol-
vency case of a nature very similar
to that of the Parmenter Manuafctur-
ing Company, which came UP from the
Suffolk county court of insolvency to
Justice Morton, and is now before the
supreme court for decision. The atti-
tude of Rice, King & Rice, and the
judges of probate of this state is up-
held by some of the other leading state
courts, and there is still so much legal
speculation on the matter that the test
case will probably be argued before
the United States supreme court.
The supreme court of New Hamn-
shire has held that the bankruptcy law
went into effect August LIST, as regards
voluntary petitions, and will go into
effect as regards involuntary petitions
November LIST.
The New York courts have held the
same idea, as likewise in Rhode Island
and elsewhere.
Judge William N Cohen of New
York, who is on the Roosevelt ticket
as a candidate for the supreme court
of that state, has held that the bank
ruptcy law went into effect as inter
preted by the local insolvency Judges.
ATTACHED FOR $4,000.