O'Neill

O'Neill v. Reynolds

Good Law
116 Cal. 264·1897 Cal. LEXIS 535·48 P. 57
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 11, 1897S. F. No. 712California622 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

One Corkery filed his petition in insolvency. At the time set for the election of an assignee by the creditors, claims in the amount of three thousand nine hundred and forty dollars and thirty-two cents were voted for O’Neill for assignee, and claims in the amount of three thousand seven hundred and five dollars and eighty cents were voted for Fleming for assignee. The total of these two amounts constituted substantially all the claims that were entitled to vote at the election. A further claim in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars was on file at that time, but by virtue of proceedings taken under section 8 of the Insolvency Act, the court held that said claim was not entitled to be voted.

Upon the foregoing facts the court decided that no person received a majority in amount of claims for assignee, and, declaring no election, appointed the sheriff assignee.

This proceeding was thereupon inaugurated in the form of an application for an alternative writ of mandate from this court, asking that, if good cause to the contrary be not shown, the order appointing the sheriff assignee be vacated, and that said O’Neill be admitted to the use and enjoyment of the office of assignee of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.