Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1915

In re Interborough Realty Co.

In re Interborough Realty Co.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided April 21, 1915 · Coxe, Lacombe, Ward
223 F. 646; 139 C.C.A. 300; 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1778

Counsel

E. M. Otterbourg, of New York City, for petitioner., D. B. Simpson, of New York City, for respondent., Hamilton, Gregory & Freeman, of New York City (William H. Hamilton and Norman C. Conklin, both of New York City, of counsel), for bankrupt.

In re Interborough Realty Co.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

All the other creditors — some of them bpndholders, others contract creditors — proved their claims as general creditors. The bonds contain a provision for sharing at maturity in the net profits, and it is contended that in consequence they are to be treated as stock.

Appellant relies on Cass v. Realty Securities, 148 App. Div. 96, 132 N. Y. Supp. 1074; Id., 206 N. Y. 649, 99 N. E. 1105, approved by us in Re Fechheimer-Fishel Company, 212 Fed. 357, 129 C. C. A. 33. These decisions do not cover the case at bar. The bondholders are promised only repayment of the amount of money loaned, with interest; it being further provided that at maturity, if after the corporation shall have paid all its debts and also 5 per cent, per annum on the stock, there shall be any surplus left, such surplus shall be divided between the stockholders and the bondholders. Such a provision does -not operate to defeat the bondholders’ claim to prove as general creditors for principal and interest.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.