The liability of the maker of a note to the surety thereon is a provable claim against the maker's estate in bankruptcy. Hayer v. Comstock, 7 Am. B. R. 493. Endorser where liability is not absolute until after filing of petition. Heyman v. Third National Bank of Jersey City, 32 Am. B. R. 716, 216 Fed. 695.

Bank of Wayne v. Gold (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), 26

Am. B. R. 722.

Amundson v. Folsom, 33 Am. B. R. 318, 219 Fed. 122, 135 C. C. A. 24. Young v. Gordon and ano., 33 Am. B. R. 522, 219 Fed. 168, 135 C. C. A. 66. In re Gerson, 5 Am. B. R. 89, 105 Fed. 891, affd. Moch v. Market Street National Bank, 6 Am. B. R. 11, 107 Fed. 897, 47 C. C. A. 49.

Stipulation in note as to attorney's fees, when provable,

In re T. H. Thompson Milling Co. (D. C., Tex.), 16 Am. B. R. 454, 144 Fed. 314.

In re Hersey (D. C., Ia.), 22 Am. B. R. 863, 171 Fed. 1004.

In re Edens & Co. (D. C., So. Car.), 18 Am. B. R. 643, 151 Fed. 940.

In re Keeton, Stell and Co. (D. C., Tex.), 11 Am. B. R. 367, 126 Fed. 426. In re Jenkins, 27 Am. B. R. 860, 192 Fed. 1000.

Mechanic's Am. National Bank v. Coleman, 29 Am. B. R. 396, 204 Fed. 24, 122 C. C. A. 338.

Not provable in Pennsylvania.

McCabe v. Patton (C. C. A., 3d Cir.), 23 Am. B. R. 335, 174 Fed. 217, 98 C. C. A. 225.

Stipulation in judgment.

In re Hershberger, 30 Am. B. R. 635, 208 Fed. 94.

Stipulation in mortgage.

British and American Mortgage Co. v. Stuart, 31 Am. B. R. 465, 210 Fed. 425, 127 C. C. A. 157.

Provability of contingent claims.- [See § 63, Vol. II, ante.]

Claim of landlord for repairs under covenant in lease.

In re Schomacker Piano Mfg. Co., 20 Am. B. R. 899, 163 Fed. 413.

In re International Milling Co., 23 Am. B. R. 664, 175 Fed. 308.

Claim of landlord upon agreement of tenant to indemnify landlord for loss of rent following bankruptcy, not provable, since there was no fixed liability,

etc."

66

Slocum et al. v. Soliday (C. C. A., 1st Cir.), 25 Am. B. R. 460, 183 Fed. 410, 106 C. C. A. 56.

Right of lessor to retain security deposited within four months.

In re Sherwoods Inc. (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 31 Am. B. R. 769, 210 Fed. 754, 127 C. C. A. 304.

Rent to accrue not provable.- [See § 63, Vol. II, ante.]

In re Mahler, 5 Am. B. R. 453, 105 Fed. 428.

Watson v. Merrill (C. C. A., 8th Cir.), 14 Am. B. R. 453, 136 Fed. 359, 69 C. C. A. 185.

In re Hinckel Brewing Co. (D. C., N. Y.), 10 Am. B. R. 484, 123 Fed. 942. In re Roth and Appel (D. C., N. Y.), 22 Am. B. R. 504, 174 Fed. 64, affd. 24 Am. B. R. 588, 181 Fed. 667, 104 C. C. A. 649.

But see, In re Caloris Mfg. Co. (D. C., Pa.), 24 Am. B. R. 609, 179 Fed. 722. Rent accruing after adjudication not provable, but contract to pay rent under the lease is not terminated.

Colman Co. v. Withoft (C. C. A., 9th Cir.), 28 Am. B. R. 328, 195 Fed. 250, 115 C. C. A. 222.

Dunlap v. Goodman Menger Lighting Co. (Pa. Com, Pl.), 31 Am. B. R. 504. In re Cress McCormick Co., 25 Am. B. R. 464.

Shapiro v. Thompson (Ala. Sup. Ct.), 24. Am. B. R. 91.

But see Martin v. Orgain (C. C. A., 5th Cir.), 23 Am. B. R. 454, 174 Fed. 772, 98 C. C. A. 246.

Unliquidated claims.- [See § 63, Vol. II, ante.]

What constitutes:

In re E. T. Kenney and Co., 14 Am. B. R. 611, 136 Fed. 451.

In re Duquesne Incandescent Light Co. (D. C., Pa.), 24 Am. B. R. 419, 176 Fed. 785.

Any doubt whether liquidated or unliquidated should be resolved in favor of its provability as a liquidated claim.

Dycus v. Brown, 135 Ky. 140, 121 S. W. 1010.

A claim for unliquidated damages for tort not connected with contract and not reduced to judgment is not susceptible of liquidation under this section. Brown and Adams v. United Button Co. (C. C. A., 3d Cir.), 17 Am. B. R. 565, 149 Fed. 48, 79 C. C. A. 70, affg. In re United Button Co., 15 Am. B. R. 390, 140 Fed. 495.

In re Hawley (D. C., Wash.), 28 Am. B. R. 58, 194 Fed. 751.

For breach of warranty upon a sale.

In re Grant Shoe Co. (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 12 Am. B. R. 349, 130 Fed. 881, 66 C. C. A. 78, affg. 11 Am. B. R. 48, 125 Fed. 576.

Form No. 221

ORDER FOR LIQUIDATION OF CLAIM

(Hagar and Alexander's Bankruptcy Forms [2d Ed.], No. 166.)

United States District Court,

District of

IN THE MATTER OF

In Bankruptcy No.

Bankrupt.

having heretofore filed his claim herein against

the above named bankrupt and the damages being unliquidated and the said claimant having applied to liquidate such damages within the year since the adjudication herein, now on motion of

attorney for said claimant it is

Ordered, that the damages upon said claim be liquidated before the referee herein and a hearing had thereon on the

.. day of

Dated

19...

..., 19...

Referee in Bankruptcy.

Procedure upon liquidation.— [See § 63, Vol. II, ante.]
In re United Button Co. (supra).

In re Silverman Bros., 4 Am. B. R. 83, 101 Fed. 219.

In re Buchan's Soap Corp. (D. C., N. Y.), 22 Am. B. R. 382, 169 Fed. 1017.
In re Southern Steel Co. (D. C., Ala.), 25 Am. B. R. 358, 183 Fed. 498.
In re Duquesne Incandescent Light Co. (supra).

Liquidation in State court.

In re Heim Milk Product Co. (D. C., N. Y.), 25 Am. B. R. 746, 183 Fed. 787. In re Martin (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 35 Am. B. R. 776, 228 Fed. 184.

Form No. 222

PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF PRIORITY CLAIMS AND SCHEDULE

(Hagar and Alexander's Bankruptcy Forms [2d Ed.], No. 167.)

1. That he is the trustee in bankruptcy herein duly qualified and acting; that annexed hereto is a schedule of claims entitled to priority (for ..........) which have been filed and allowed herein. Petitioner believes that said claims are just and correct and should be paid at once for the following reasons:

Wherefore petitioner prays that an order be entered authorizing

and directing him as trustee to pay the net amount set opposite the name of each claimant, as a claim entitled to priority herein.

Claims entitled to priority of payment.- [See § 64, Vol. II, ante.] Bankruptcy Act supersedes State insolvency laws and prescribes what debts shall have priority of payment.

Smith v. Mottley (C. C. A., 6th Cir.), 17 Am. B. R. 863, 150 Fed. 266, 80 C. C. A. 154, revg. 16 Am. B. R. 226, 143 Fed. 407; In re Slomka (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 9 Am. B. R. 635, 122 Fed. 630, 58 C. C. A. 322, revg. 9 Am. B. R. 124, 117 Fed. 688.

Not enlarged by State statute.

In re Crown Point Brush Co. (D. C., N. Y.), 29 Am. B. R. 638, 200 Fed. 882. Surety upon debt due United States and general wage claims.

Guaranty Title and Trust Co. v. Title Guaranty and Surety Co. (U. S. Sup.), 27 Am. B. R. 873, 224 U. S. 152, 56 L. Ed. 706, revg. s. c. 23 Am. B. R. 340, 174 Fed. 285, 98 C. C. A. 603, and affg. In re Pittsburgh Industrial Iron Works (D. C., Pa.), 22 Am. B. R. 851.

Claim for trust funds misappropriated, not specifically traced, subordinated to claims of general creditors.

In re See (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 31 Am. B. R. 360, 209 Fed. 172, 126 C. C. A. 120. Priority attaches to character of claim, not to claimant.—

In re Harmon, 11 Am. B. R. 64, 128 Fed. 170.

Shropshire, Woodliff and Co. v. Bush, 17 Am. B. R. 77, 204 U. S. 186, 51 L. Ed. 436, 26 Sup. Ct. 178.

Priority of surety company which has paid wages of workmen under its bond. In re Dutcher, 32 Am. B. R. 545, 213 Fed. 908.

Assigned checks received in payment of wages held entitled to priority.

In re Stultz Bros. (D. C., N. Y.), 34 Am. B. R. 783, 226 Fed. 989.

Sufficiency of statement to entitle to allowance as a priority claim.

In re Dunn (D. C., N. Y.), 25 Am. B. R. 103, 181 Fed. 701.

"Wage earners as defined by § 1(27) of Act not controlling in determining what claims are entitled to priority.

In re Scanlon (D. C., Ky.), 3 Am. B. R. 202, 97 Fed. 26.

In re Rouse, Hazard and Co., 1 Am. B. R. 234, 91 Fed. 96, 33 C. C. A. 356. Blessing v. Blanchard (C. C. A., 9th Cir.), 35 Am. B. R. 135, 223 Fed. 35, 138 C. C. A. 399.

VOL. III-12

Contra. In re August Becker and Co. (Ref., N. Y.), 31 Am. B. R. 596.

In re Hurley (D. C., Minn.), 29 Am. B. R. 567, 204 Fed. 126.

Wage earners.-[See § 64, Vol. II, ante.]

What constitutes " wages."

Weaver v. Hugill Stone Supply Co., 16 Am. B. R. 516.

Spruks v. Lackawanna Dairy Co., 26 Am. B. R. 554, 189 Fed. 287.

"Piece workers" entitled to priority as wage earners.

In re Gurewitz (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 10 Am. B. R. 350, 121 Fed. 982, 58 C. C. A. 320.

66

In re Thomas Deutschle and Co. (D. C., Pa.), 25 Am. B. R. 343, 182 Fed. 430. Commissions paid to a traveling salesman for his services are wages within the Act, as amended.

In re New England Thread Co. (In re Dexter) (C. C. A., 1st Cir.), 20 Am. B. R. 47, 158 Fed. 788, 89 C. C. A. 285, afïg. 1ỏ Am. B. R. 840, 154 Fed. 742. In re National Marble and Granite Co., 31 Am. B. R. 80, 206 Fed. 185.

In re Fink (D. C., Pa.), 20 Am. B. R. 897, 163 Fed. 135.

Burden on claimant to prove by fair preponderance of evidence the contract of employment and performance of services.

Mason v. St. Albans Furniture Co., 17 Am. B. R. 868, 149 Fed. 898.

In re B. H. Gladding Co. (D. C., R. I.), 9 Am. B. R. 700, 120 Fed. 709.

Not entitled to priority out of proceeds of sale of property over those having valid fixed liens on such property at date of adjudication.

In re Yoke Vitrified Brick Co., 25 Am. B. R. 18, 180 Fed. 235.

Wage claim and lien of chattel mortgage.

In re McDavid Lumber Co. (D. C., Fla.), 27 Am. B. R. 39, 190 Fed. 97, affg. W. Hayward Export Co. v. Lee, 193 Fed. 647, 113 C. C. A. 515.

See In re Coe-Powers and Co. (C. C. A., 6th Cir.), 6 Am. B. R. 1, 109 Fed. 550, 48 C. C. A. 538.

Section includes a bookkeeper.

In re Baumblatt (D. C., Pa.), 19 Am. B. R. 500; 156 Fed. 422.

And musicians employed at regular wages to play at a theatre, restaurant, etc.

In re Caldwell, 21 Am. B. R. 236, 164 Fed. 515.
Salesman.

In re Roebuck Weather Strip and Wire Screen Co. (D. C., N. Y.), 24 Am. B. R. 532, 180 Fed. 497.

Teamster entitled only to priority for his personal services, not for use of horse, etc.

In re Winton Lumber and Mfg. Co., 17 Am. B. R. 117.

Claim of infant for wages.

In re Huntenberg, 18 Am. B. R. 697, 153 Fed. 768.

Priority of wage claim over bankrupt's claim for homestead exemption.

In re Strickland (D. C., Ga.), 20 Am. B. R. 923, 167 Fed. 867.

Petition to review denial of priority claim.

In re A. O. Brown and Co., 22 Am. B. R. 496, 171 Fed. 281.

Application of payments during three months' period where bankrupt is also indebted to claimants for wages both within and beyond the three months' period.

In re Van Wert Machine Co. (D. C., Mass.), 26 Am. B. R. 597, 186 Fed. 607. President of a corporation not a wage earner within § 64-b.

Carpenter v. Cudd (C. C. A., 4th Cir.), 23 Am. B. R. 463, 174 Fed. 603.