Case Name: In re HALSTEAD & CO. JAMES E. WARE & SON v. GRIFFIN
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1914-01-31
Citations: 215 F. 85
Docket Number: No. 67
Parties: In re HALSTEAD & CO. JAMES E. WARE & SON v. GRIFFIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 215
Pages: 85–87

Head Matter:
In re HALSTEAD & CO. JAMES E. WARE & SON v. GRIFFIN.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 31, 1914.
On Petition for Rehearing, April 1, 1914.)
No. 67.
Corporations (§ 590 )—Consoeidatton—Contracts—Assumed Debts.
A contract for the consolidation of a firm and certain other corporations provided that the assets should aggregate a specified sum, and on that basis the total amount of the firm’s, debts to be assumed by the consolidated corporation should not exceed $100,000, but if the assets exceeded the amount specified, the indebtedness might also exceed $100,000 to the same extent, and that any claim against the firm for work done or materials furnished should be assumed and paid by the consolidated company. Held, that the consolidated company was not liable for an in debtedness of tbe firm to certain architects for services not included in the liabilities determined at the time of consolidation, nor computed nor considered at the time the corporation settled its obligations with the members of the firm under the consolidation contract. '
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2354, 2361-2367; Dec. Dig. § 590. ]
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey; Joseph Cross, Judge.
In the matter of bankruptcy proceedings of Halstead' & Co. From an order reversing a referee’s order, allowing in part the claim of James E. Ware & Son (204 Fed. 115), they appeal.
Affirmed.
John W. Remer, of New York City, for James E. Ware & Son.
McDermott & Enright, of Jersey City, N. J., for Griffin.
Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and McPHERSON, Circuit Judges.
For other eases see same topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In the bankruptcy in the court below of Halstead & Co., a corporation, Ware & Son, the appellants, presented a claim, inter alia, for services as architect, rendered to Halstead & Co., a partnership. This claim they averred had been assumed by the bankrupt in a written contract between the corporation and the partnership. The referee allowed the part of the claim here in controversy, but his action was reversed by the court below. From a decree so holding Ware & Son appealed to this court. The opinion of the lower court is reported at 204 Fed. 115, by reference to which a restatement of the facts is avoided. After argument and due consideration this court agrees with the court below that by the writing in question the bankrupt did not assume the rejected claim.
As no principle or precedent is involved, simply the construction of a writing, we limit ourselves to announcing such conclusion and affirming the order of the lower court.