The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-02-19
The st. 0nge & 0'Neill
Company Desires One.
OPPOSED BY CREDITOR
Propose TO Pursue Stockholders 10
Recover Claim.
NOVEL POINTS WERE RAISED.

The petition or the st. Onge 4 O'Neili
Dry Goods Com pany for a discharge in
insolvency was before the Appella'
Court again this morning Dexter J.
Potter, In behalf of Hartwell &s kichaIds
Company, opposed the motion. Mr.
Mitchell OF Bassett ~ Mitchell appeared
for the st. Onge & Nelll Company
The questions invoived are so important
that Judge Rogers requested counsel on
both sides to ille bri,fs within two weeks
MIR. Potter said his clients opposed th3
grantii OF the petition. FIRST because
the st. Onge a O Neiil Dry Goods Com
pany was corporation, and, secondly.
because the stockholders of the corpora
tion were personally and seyerally liable.
The Hsrtwell Il Richards Company had
suit pending in the Common Pleas
Division TO recover balance Of $1,000
due after the payment Of the last diyi-
ceDd by the assignee, the company in
terding to pursue the stockholders. AS
the law required, judgment had first
been obtained against the corporation
MIR. Potter urged that the granting OF n
discharge to the CORPORATION would de-
prive creditors of their legal rights and
remedies but said he could not find in "a
pretty Ciligent search any guthorit
bearing on the point raised.
Judge Rogers asked counsel If there
were any English cases bearing upon the
point iDyolyo1. His honor said that many
years ago he had found mum ber of cases
In connection with bankruptcy proceed
inEs and some held that the bankruptcy
OF the corporation dissolved the corpora
ii III and the remedy went with IN.
MIR Potter asked what Poon IA discharge
would DO the IT. Onge ~ O'Nfill Com
pany as the same PERSONS. even if they
inf Inns afs1.g "A
different name. lie also argued that the
holding that IA coporation could be dis
charged might open N pathway to many
abuses In the presenJ case the corp Ta-
tion had never made any returns TO ths
secretary of state nor had the oapi al stock
been paid in.
Judge Rogers sad the case WAS very
important one aud it would certainly be
one Of the loading casss under the present
insolvency law.
MIR. Mitchell said he also was unable to
find any authorities bearing on ths ques-
ticn involvec. but 10 seemed TO him a cor
porntion was bv one law put op tho same
footing as an individual. There could TO
no reason, Mr.. Mitchell slid why it an in
dividual, could settle with his cr ditors
for 10 cents on the dolIr. n corporat on
could not. In q Massachuset S oHss 10 had
DCen held that III there was not a proy isign
excluding corporations from ths provision
of the insolvency law IL would apply 10
them.
There were special provisions in the
Massachusetts insolvency laws and the
United States statutes bankruptcy law
extlndinR corporations from their opera
tion and IL it had been he intention OF
those forming our Insolvency law TO have
excluded corporations from its provisions
they would nave 80 stated.
Again. Mir. Angel urged that 10 wns
90, k.e. 4s
OF the dollar as this corporation bad,
than for nm individual to pay 10 cents
Judge Rogers gave counsel two weeks
i'm which to file briefs.