IN RE PRICE.
685
In re PRICE et al. (District Court, S. D. New York. February 2, 1899.) BANKRUPTCY CHARGE. EXAMINATION OF BANKRUPT BEFORE SPECIFICATIONS ON DIS"
Under subdivision 9 of section 7 of the bankrupt act, it is proper that an examination of the bankrupt should be had· in behalf of creditors, to enable them to prepare specifications opposing his discharge; section 58 requires that all creditors shall have 10 ten days' notice of such an ex-. amination, which should therefore be open to all creditors and ordinarily be bad once for all; to avoid extra expense and delay, the notice to creditors to attend in opposition to the discharge, should embrace also a notice of the examination of the bankrupt; such examination should also be at the expense of creditors, as respects any clerical or stenographic aid in taking notes.
In Bankruptcy. Examination of Bankrupt. Herman Joseph, for bankrupts. James J. Allen, for creditors. BROWN, District Judge. Certain creditors of the bankrupts not having attended at the first meeting when the bankrupts were present and ready for examination, but having afterwards been admitted to prove their claim, applied to the referee to order an examination of the bankrupts in their behalf after the bankrupts had filed their application for discharge. The referee decliued to order the examination until specifications in opposition to the discharge should be filed. The ." question has been certified to me. I do not find anything in the bankrupt act or the rules which limits the examination of the bankrupt to any particular time or occasion. Under subdivision 9 of section 7, it would seem that such an examination may be ordered at any time during the pendency of the proceedings. It is not unreasonable I think to allow creditors to examine the bankrupt concerning the mode of conducting his business, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been any such offense committed, or failure to keep books, as would furnish a just ground for refusing a discharge; and therefore I think such applications should be allowed before specifications are filed, if applied for on the return day of the notice of the debtor's application for discharge, and no prior examination of that kind has been had. In re Mawson, 1 N. H. R. 271, Fed. Oas. No. 9,320; In re Seckendorf, 1 N. B. R. 626, Fed. Oas. No. 12,600; In re Vogel, 5 N. B. R. 396, Fed. Cas. No. 16,984. section 58, however, requires that creditors shall have at least 10 days' notice by mail of "all examinations of the bankrupt"; so that such an examination cannot proceed until after 10 days' notice to all creditors, unless the notice of application for the bankrupt's discharge mailed to creditors contained also a notice of the bankrupt's examination. Hereafter the published and mailed notices of application for a discharge, should contain a notice of examination of the
688
91
FlllDlilRAL REPOJtTER.
debtor to avoid the necessity of further to all creditors in case such an examination is allowed. 0tllyone such examination as reo spects the discharge· should be had; since the statute in re,quiring that all creditors shall have notice of it, presumably intends that all should be equally allowed to participate in it, once for all, And not further h,arass the In re Vogel, 5 N. B. R. 396, 397, Fed. Cas. No, 16,984. For the present examination, if a new notice to all creditors is required through lack notice, the new notices and exam· ination must. be at theexpen$e of the applicants; for which. I allow to the referee for necessary, .clerical aid, as a necessary expense, con· sidering that there are 50 creditors or upwards, $7.50, which the a.ppli· cants should deposit in adv{ulce, as well as'pay the cost of clerical or stenographic aid in taking the testimony on the examination.
UNITED STATES v. LOEB et at
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. New York. January 18, 1899.) No. 2,474. CuSTOMS DUTlES,--CLASSIFIOATION-HEMSTITCHIllD. LAWNS.
Certain hemstitched IawnBhela. to be dutiable as manufactures of cotton not otherwise prOVided for, under paragraph 355 of the act of 1890, and not as "partly made cotton wearing apparel," under paragraph 349.
This was an application by the United States for a review of a decision· of the board of general appraisers in respect to tbeclassi· ftcation for dUty of certain goods imported by Loeb & Schoonfeld. The merchandise consisted ,of certain hemstitched lawns, which were classified for duty by the coUectpr as "partly ma(le cotton wearing apparel," at 50 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph pf the act of October 1, 1890. 'l'helmporters protested that ,the goods were manufactures of cotton not otherwIse provIded for, dutiable 'at· 40 per cent: "lid valorem, under paragraph '855 of the same act. No eVidence was taken before the board of general appraisers, whIch found and decIded that the merchandIse In question was hemstItched lawns, and sustaIned the claim of the Importers; the board referring to the case In re Mllls, 56 Fed. 820. The government appealed, upon the record as sent up by the board.
James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty. W. Wickham Smith, for appellees. WHEELER, District Judge. The classification of these hem· stitched lawns, appealed from, appears to. have been made in accordance with In re Mills, 56 Fed. 820. The protest is criticis.ed as misleading, but as it referred .to the right paragraph, and claimed the correct rate, it appears to have been SUfficient, notwithstanding the alleged misdescriptions of the goods. Decii;lion affirmed.