U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1916

In re Pierson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided November 4, 1916 · Mayer, Rogers, Ward

238 F. 142; 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1320

Counsel

Bayard U. Peck, of New York City, for-petitioner Quinn., Goldman, Heide & Unger, of New York City, for petitioners Levy, Van Thyn, and Vrieslander., James Gillin, of New York City, for petitioner Gott., Stanchfield & Levy, of New York City, for alleged bankrupts.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

McKee v. Hummel (7th Cir. 1927)
In re Archer, Harvey & Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1923)

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.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Duel v. Hollins, 241 U. S. 523, 36 Sup. Ct. 615, 60 L. Ed. 1143, requires us ta modify our opinion lately handed down, so as to direct that the court below permit the claimants Van-Thyn, Vrieslander, Levy, and Quinn to recover their pro rata shares of the respective stocks on hand. But their shares must be ascertained by including in the calculation the shares of all long customers in the same position, whether they made claim for their shares in the stock on hand or not. That the shares of those who claim should be increased by the circumstance that other long customers made no claim would be inequitable. What would otherwise have gone to those customers should go to the general creditors.

Reconsideration does not cause us to change our opinion in other respects, viz. as to the claims of Quinn and Gott.

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