Court Opinion

ID: 3629152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:09:01.740542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:23.492252
License: Public Domain

Section 56 of article 2 of the Revised Statutes, entitled "Of proceedings against corporations in equity" (2 R.S., 466), was designed for the benefit of creditors, and to enable those interested to wind up the affairs of an insolvent corporation with as little delay as possible. It authorizes a procedure complete and perfect in itself, for the ascertainment of the claims against the corporation, and a distribution of the assets among creditors. Proceedings being had under this section, resort cannot be had to other statutes for a guide and directory to the receiver. The directions of article 3, of the same title, which is entitled "of the voluntary dissolution of corporations," to receivers as to the time and manner of distributing the assets are inapplicable. Under section 56 the court undertakes the distribution, and declares by its judgment, the rights of claimants.
The order prescribing the time for presenting claims, and declaring the consequences of the omission to present the claims, is authorized by law and obligatory upon all. This followed by the order and judgment, the regularity and legality of which is not disputed, declaring the rights of creditors, and absolutely barring those who have not come in under the first order of their claims is final, and effectually excludes all who have not presented their claims. *Page 318 
The court in this case directed the first, second and final dividends of the assets, and while the court might in its discretion, have relieved the petitioner from the consequences of his laches, and permitted him to share in that part of the estate that had not been distributed, it is not the province of this court, to review the exercise of that discretion. I concur in the result, and for these reasons agree to the affirmance of the order.
All concur in the result.
FOLGER J., concurred in ALLEN'S opinion.
The other judges were not understood as expressing any opinion upon the power of the court below to relieve the petitioner.
Order affirmed.