The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-01-06
DRENNEN'S CLAIM
SET FOR HEARING
Comes Up Before Referee Trim
BILE Next Saturday
TRUSTEES TO FIGHT CLAIM
Captain White, Attorney for Trustee,
Says 1t Has Always Been In
tentlon of His Client to
Make This Fight.
TRUSTEES TO FIGHT CLAIM

| The claim Of d. NJ Drennen against
the Denelson Construction company
Bankrupt, for $4,000 has been set for
hearing before Referee N. NJ Trimble of
the bankruptcy court, on next Saturday
| morning at II o'clock.
Mr.. Drennen sues the construction COM
pany on an alleged agreement by which
he was to act as adviser FOR the Donel-
son Construction company, the Pennington
! Construction company and C. NJ Burk-
halter e. Co., in securing certain
contracts from the Jefferson county sani-
tary commission. The claim of Mr. Dren-
men was filed In the United States court
in November. and after conference be-
tween the attorneys in the case held on
yesterday it was decided to have next
Saturday set as the time for hearing the
claim
The Attorneys.
Frank s. White & Sons, representing
II. w. Coffin, trustee of the Donelson
Construction company, and Ward &
Drennen and John II. Miller, representing
the claimant. are the attorneys in the
case. The trustee, through his attor-
neys, viii fight the claim
Several witnesses on each side will be
summoned to testify in the matter. Capt.
White stated yesterday afternoon that he
would have at least two important wit
nesses summoned to appear in the bank
ruptcy court on Saturday morning He
would not give their names.
1T has always been the intention Of the
| ct fn fob lot IF Mr.
men" said Capt White "Of course l am
not in a position to say whether or not the
claim will be pushed in the bankruptcy
court, but If its is and l have no rea-
| son to believe that 1t will not, 1t will be
contested. The referee will hear the evil
dencel in the case, and after the argu-
1 ments if there are any he will render a
/ decision
When asked yesterday afternoon the
direct question, "win your claim be
withdrawn, or will it remain in the court
for hearing?" Mr.. Drennen replied
II have nothing to say on the sub
ject."
Objections Filed.
| Trustee Coffin, through his attorney,
! filed objection against the claim of Mr..
Drennen in the bankruptcy court yester-
day. The objection follows:
| I'm the matter of the claim of d. M.
Drennen VS.. Donelson Construction COM
pany, bankrupt, filed in said cause, comes
II. w. Coffin, trustee in bankruptcy of
the estate of said bankrupt, and objects
to the allowance of said claim on the
| following grounds:
| 81. Said claim is not a valid claim
| against said estate.
| 20. There was no legal consideration
| flowing from said D. M Drennen to said
Donelson Construction company under
the supposed contract upon which the
said claim is based.
% There was no consideration flowing
| from said Drennen to said Donelson Con-
| structfon company upon which to base
| contract upon which said claim is
| founded.
a The contract upon which said claim
is based was not executed by the said
Doneison Construction company
%. That said Donelson Construction
company had no power or authority I'M
der its charter to make or enter into the
| contract upon which said claim is based. +"
The sixth to eighth clauses are repeti-
lions.
! AS to Public Policy.
80 The contract upon which said claim
is founded is against public policy.
10. The contract upon which said
claim is founded is contrary to morality
Ill The contemplated consideration
| which was to flow from said Drennen to
said Donelson Construction company. un-
| der the contract upon which said claim
Is based. is Illegal and against public pol
| icy.
'12. That the services which said Dren-
men were to perform under the contract
upon which said claim Is founded were
| not such as will constitute a legal consld-
| Grafton for said contract.
.13. The consideration of the said con-
| tract upon which said claim is founded is
| against public policy.
IA That the contract upon which said
| claim is based is void.
rs That the services agreed to be per-
| formed by said Drennen under contract
upon which said claim Is founded were not
performed.
"16 That the sewer contract from the
Jefferson Sanitary commission, mentioned
| in the contract upon which said claim
| is Dased, was never obtained Dy the DON
elson Construction company.
30 That the contract on which said
claim is based Is unconscionable.
"21. That the contract upon which said
claim is based is void in law and cannot
be made a basis of a claim against es-
tate. Therefore said trustee says said
claim should be disallowed."
trial. he would have full explanation of
the transaction made. He said that there
was nothing improper In this matter, and
that the contract filed by him was un-
fortunately drawn, the consideration be
stated to be for advice in procuring the
contract, which, he says, was not in fact
the true consideration"
when the above statement from the re-
port of the secretary was read to Mr..
Drennen yesterday after the meeting, and
he was asked IL he made such state
ment to Secretary Smyer, he replied
II have nothing to say concerning the
claim"
At the conclusion of Secretary Smyer's
report, the commission proceeded with
routine business.
President Anderson. Commissioners
Thomas II. Motion, James ]. Smith,
Chambers McAdory, M. v. Joseph, j. M.
Gillespy, c. A. Nolan and A. w. Smith,
and Secretary Singer and Chief Engineer
Julian Kendrick were present at the
meeting Of the commission yesterday at
ternoou.