In re Missouri Gas Electric Serv. Ice Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Federal Facilities Realty Trust

    220 F.2d 495 (7th Cir. 1955)   Cited 12 times

    United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Bray, 225 U.S. 205, 32 S.Ct. 620, 56 L.Ed. 1055. See also U.S. v. Wood, 2 Cir., 290 F. 109, affirmed 263 U.S. 680, 44 S.Ct. 134, 68 L.Ed. 503; In re Missouri Gas Electric Service Company, D.C., 11 F. Supp. 434. Furthermore, by express provision, the jurisdiction in reorganization includes all that a court of the United States would have had, if it had appointed a receiver in equity.

  2. State of Texas v. Donoghue

    88 F.2d 48 (5th Cir. 1937)   Cited 9 times

    Their prosecution should not be drawn into the bankruptcy court, but should be left in the state courts. In re Sentinel Oil Co. (D.C.) 12 F. Supp. 294; In re Missouri Gas Electric Service Co. (D.C.) 11 F. Supp. 434. To the condemnation proceeding which the state sought permission to bring, these observations apply with peculiar force.

  3. In re Los Angeles Land and Investments, Ltd.

    282 F. Supp. 448 (D. Haw. 1968)   Cited 34 times
    Interpreting analogous provision of former Bankruptcy Act to require consideration of "nature" of claim not as that word is intended in its "technical sense in law but [as it] is used in its ordinary common vernacular"

    It is, therefore, imperative that all claims of a contingent nature be liquidated by the best means available at the time, and the judge in such circumstances has, in his discretion, the power and authority to order the manner of their liquidation. Hippodrome Bldg. Co. v. Irving Trust Co., supra; In re Missouri Gas and Electric Service Co., W.D.Mo. (1935) 11 F. Supp. 434; Larkin v. Munson Steamship Lines, C.A. 2nd (1938) 100 F.2d 393. As stated in Collier on Bankruptcy, Vol. 6A, Sec. 9.06, Pg. 173: "The manner of allowance of contingent and unliquidated claims lies in the discretion of the judge in view of section 196. Contingent claims or claims not presently due may be discounted to present worth or if that is impossible, must be provided for in the plan on a basis consistent with treatment of other claims of their class.

  4. United States v. John A. Johnson Sons

    137 F. Supp. 881 (E.D. Tenn. 1954)   Cited 2 times

    In the memorandum opinion of April 24, 1953, 111 F. Supp. 785, at page 787, in which the Court upheld Johnson's claimed right of set-off, the following appears: `The cases indicate that the answer is to be reached through equitable considerations in relation to the purposes of Chapter 10. See Lowden v. Northwestern National Bank, 298 U.S. 160, 56 S.Ct. 696, 80 L.Ed 1114; In re Rosenbaum Grain Corporation, 7 Cir., 103 F.2d 656, 657; In re Howell King Co., D.C.M.D.Pa., 15 F. Supp. 151; In re Missouri Gas Electric Service Co., D.C.W.D.Mo., 11 F. Supp. 434; Susquehanna Chemical Corp. v. Producers Bank Trust Co., 3 Cir., 174 F.2d 783. "As the Court interprets the conclusion of the courts in the foregoing cases, the rule is that a claim of a creditor may be offset against a debtor in a reorganization proceeding, provided the court is of the opinion from all of the facts that the equities require such offsets.

  5. United States v. John A. Johnson Sons

    111 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. Tenn. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    It appears from consideration of the above that set-off should be allowed here, if not "inconsistent with the provisions," including the purposes, of Chapter 10. Determination of that question rests upon consideration of all the circumstances on which the claim of set-off is based. The cases indicate that the answer is to be reached through equitable considerations in relation to the purposes of Chapter 10. See Lowden v. Northwestern National Bank, 298 U.S. 160, 56 S.Ct. 696, 80 L.Ed. 1114; In re Rosenbaum Grain Corporation, 7 Cir., 103 F.2d 656, 657; In re Howell King Co., D.C.M.D.Pa., 15 F. Supp. 151; In re Missouri Gas Electric Service Co., D.C.W.D.Mo., 11 F. Supp. 434; Susquehanna Chemical Corp. v. Producers Bank Trust Co., 3 Cir., 174 F.2d 783. As the Court interprets the conclusion of the courts in the foregoing cases, the rule is that a claim of a creditor may be offset against a debtor in a reorganization proceeding, provided the court is of the opinion from all of the facts that the equities require such offsets.

  6. In re James Butler Grocery Co.

    12 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1935)   Cited 7 times

    It has been recently held that liquidation by suit in a state court need not defer the fixing of a time within which this is to be done. In re Missouri Gas, etc., Co. (D.C.) 11 F. Supp. 434. These considerations yield the view that, while a tort claimant may not be stayed from liquidating his claim in a state court action, expediency will ordinarily divert him from that course.