Case Name: Simon and Mark Pinsky vs. Jules A. Resweber
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-01-18
Citations: 49 La. Ann. 246
Docket Number: No. 12,332
Parties: Simon and Mark Pinsky vs. Jules A. Resweber.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 246–249

Head Matter:
No. 12,332.
Simon and Mark Pinsky vs. Jules A. Resweber.
In the ease of insolvency where two appeals have been taken from two different orders, one to the Circuit Court of Appeals and the other to this court, the Supreme Court is only concerned with the appeal to it. The fact that two orders of appeal were thus granted is no ground for dismissal of the appeal sent to the Supreme Court.
The oath of a proxy of a creditor must be direct and positive as to the existence of the debt. “Prom the best of his knowledge and belief” isnot sufficient, as this shows oh its face that the knowlege is derivative. But where the oath of the proxy is direct, positive and unequivocal, this authorizes the proxy to vote at the meeting of creditors.
The validity of the debt can only be questioned in an opposition to the distribution of the fund.
APPEAL from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Martin. Voorhies, J.
Martin & Voorhies for Plaintiffs, Appellees.
James Simon and James E. Mouton for Defendant, Appellant.
Argued and submitted January 5, 1897.
Opinion handed down January 18, 1897.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McEnery, J.
The motion to dismiss the appeal recites that two orders of appeal were granted in this case; one to the Circuit Court of Appeals, on the order for a meeting of creditors, and .the second, in opposition to proceedings of the meeting of creditors, to this court, and that there is but one appeal bond in the record, and that the same is insufficient, as it does not mention the number of the suit, when the judgment was rendered, the nature of the judgment, in whose favor the judgment was rendered; nor is it shown in the bond who are appellees and appellants.
It does not appear that the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals was perfected. At any rate we have nothing to do with the appeal to that court, but are only concerned with the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiffs' claim is for seventy-eight dollars or thereabouts. They are pursuing a fund for distribution exceeding two thousand dollars. There is a contest of creditors which would eventuate in the final distribution of this fund if the plaintiffs succeed in their contention. The case is as though the debtor had made a voluntary surrender, and there was a contest among creditors for the settlement of the rights, which went to the whole fund.
In obedience to the order of court the debtor filed his schedule, and it shows a fund exceeding the lower limits of our jurisdiction. The whole contention is the disposition of this fund, whether it shal be surrendered, or whether it shall remain iu the hands of the-* debtor. There is no contention as to the claim of plaintiffs.
Motion denied.