The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-05-12
Its Answer to Attempt to
Place 1t in Bankruptcy.
CASE TO BE HEARD TODAY
argument Advanced that the Trigg
Company is Not Such Corpora
ton as to Come Within the
National Bankruptcy Law.

counsel j. Jordan Leake, and Christian &
Christian, attorneys, yesterday filed their
answer. Accompanying the answer Is
motion to dismiss the petition Of credi-
tors to have the said William Il. Trigg
Company adjudlcated bankrupts and II
demurrer to that petition. There are also
filed answers and demurrers on the part
OF the Virginia Trust Company and the
majority of tho second mortgage bond
holders. n
Judge waddill will. to-day in the Dis
trict Court. set time for hearing the
motion to dismiss the petitions and the
argument thereon.
The William r. Trigg Company In It's
answer alleges that 1t Is not such cor
poraton us will come within the appli-
cation OF the national bankruptcy law;
that the petitioners arc not creditors
having provabe claims amounting to $500
In excess OF securities held by them; that
the Commercial Trust Company Is not q
creditor for any amount whatsoever. and
that the petition does not show that any
of the creditors has a provabie claim
exceeding $500.
QUESTION AT ISSUE.
The question at issue, or rather which
Is regarded as the crucial Issue in Inc
proceeding, Is as to whether the amend-
Ynent to the bankruptcy law making APP
pointmcnt OF a receiver operate to force
company into bankruptcy Is retroactive
in its operation. 1t seems that when
the recevership was determined upon the
bankruptcy law did not make that ground
for declaring q company bankrupts, but
the law has since that date and prior to
tho filing OF these petitions Of creditors
been amended 80 as to make the appoint
mcnt OF receiver equivalent to declaring
company or firm bankrupt.
In Its answer the William r. Trigg
Company, without waving its motion TO
dismiss the petition or It's demurrer there
to- does controvcrt such petition and file
the following answer:
The said William r. Trigg Company Is
corporation, but not a corporation en-
gagged principally in manufacturing or in
trading or In printing or publishing or
in mercantile pursuits but principally en-
gagged In building construction and repair
of boats and vessels on orders from GUS
toners and In the operation OF the Rich
mond dock as successors In law OF tho
Richmond Dock Company.
ARE NOT CREDITORS.
O. That said petitioners are not cred
itors OF the said William r. Trigg Com
pany. having proyable claims amounting
In the aggregate. in excess OF securities
held by them to $500 because an said Pc pc.
titioners hold liens or securities as set
out in said petition on property OF said
William r. Trigg Company for the en-
tire amounts OF their Indebtedness. except
as to the sum OF $3.50 claimed by the
petitioner. Merchant & CO.. Incorporated.
as trustee Us not n creditor OF said VIII
liam r. Trigg Company for any amount
whatsoever and said petition does not
show that any other of said petitioners
except Merchant & Co. has provable
claim vs. the William r. Trtgg Com
pany: wherefore answer is made TO said
petition and hearing and the Judgment
OF the court Is asked thereon.
In the case OF the Seaboard Steel Cast
ing Company Va. The William r. Trigg
Company to which the answer is made.
THE William r. Trigg Company moves to
dismiss tho petition and also demurs to
The petition. saying the same is not SUI
Hcient In law, and assigns four grounds
for this contendon:
"a Said petition is not properly verified
under oath. as required by law
f2) That said petition states on Its face
that all the petitioners have or claim to
have liens or securities upon the prop
erty OF the said William r. Trtgg Conn
pany for the entire amount OF their In
defyfedness, except MS to the sum OF $3.50,
claimed by petitioner. Merchant q Co..
Incorporated and therefore 1t does not
appear that the said petitioners. except
Merchant & Co., have provable claims
amounting to 700.
(3) The said Commercial Trust Com
pany, trustee, Is not such q creditor OF
said William r Trigg Company as can y,
1on in petition In bankruptcy under
the act Of July LIST. 1895.
NOT ACT OF BANKRUPTCY.
n az That tho alleged act OF bankruptcy
committed by the said William r. Trigg
Company. namely. the appointment OF
receiver for said company because OF In
polyency on December 23d. 1902. does not
constitute an act Of bankruptcy under
the act of july LIST. 1898. and therefore
raId petition does not sufficiently allege
Inc commission of an act of bankruptcy.
The Virginia Trust Company, by coun-
rel, also files similar answers. makes
jimilar motion and enters similar de-
murrer to the petition OF the Seaboard
Steel Casting Company.
The second mortgage bondholders. In
Guiding Henry NJ Flagler, Virginia Pas
senger and Power Company. James ~.
Boyd, Robert s.. Bosher. Thomas Atkin-
son, City Bank of Richmond. Joseph
Bryan, Davenport & Co.. Planters Ma
tional Bank, s, w. Travers. S. ID, Cren-
shaw and others also file answers and
motions to dismiss and demurrers to the
petition of the seaboard Steel Casting
Company and other creditors.
In Its answer to the Frederick Post
Company. of Chicago, and other credi-
tors, who filed their petitions through
l.-s..s Z