Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Bankruptcy-Bankrupt's Petition To Reopen Estate, Joseph N. Morency, Jr. S.Ed.
Bankruptcy-Bankrupt's Petition To Reopen Estate, Joseph N. Morency, Jr. S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner's no-asset estate in bankruptcy was closed and a discharge was granted in 1942. In 1945 a judgment creditor of the bankrupt sued in a Connecticut court on a judgment which antedated the bankruptcy proceeding and the existence of which was unknown to the bankrupt at the time he filed his schedules. It appeared that the bankruptcy proceeding was likewise unknown to the judgment creditor. Petitioner sought an order reopening the estate for the purpose of amending schedules to include the judgment inadvertently omitted; and the district court entered such an order over the objection of the judgment creditor. On …
Federal Procedure-Impleader Under Rule I4-Lack Of Diversity Of Citizenship Between Original Plaintiff And Third-Party Defendant, Frank E. Roegge S.Ed.
Federal Procedure-Impleader Under Rule I4-Lack Of Diversity Of Citizenship Between Original Plaintiff And Third-Party Defendant, Frank E. Roegge S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, a citizen of Connecticut sued defendant, a citizen of Ohio, for injuries received when the car in which plaintiff was a passenger collided with a truck driven by defendant. Defendant removed the case from a Connecticut state court to a federal district court and then obtained an order citing plaintiff's husband, a citizen of Connecticut and the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding, as a third-party defendant under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant had no claim against the third party by Connecticut substantive law which does not recognize contribution between tort-feasors. …
Corporations-Foreign Corporations-Jurisdiction In Derivative Suits, E. M. Deal S.Ed.
Corporations-Foreign Corporations-Jurisdiction In Derivative Suits, E. M. Deal S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
As an aftermath of the much publicized circus fire in Hartford, Connecticut, on July 6, 1944, owners of 37 per cent of the stock of the circus corporation brought a derivative action against the officers and directors alleging failure to observe proper precautions and asking that the corporation be indemnified for losses sustained and for an accounting for certain corporation funds spent for the benefit of one of the- defendant directors. The suit was instituted in New York where the corporation was licensed to do business although the circus was incorporated in Delaware, wintered in Florida, and the cause of …