Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/473

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

IN RE 6B0OME. ���465 ���received by the petitioner, nor, as far as he has b'een able to leam, was any such mailed or otherwise sent to him, although the residence of the petitioner was well known to said Sam- uel W. Groome at and before the presentation of the said Groome's petition in bankruptcy." The petition then pro- ceeds in these words : "Your petitioner further shows that at the time of the filing of the said petition in bankruptcy, and at the time of the adjudication aforesaid, the said Samuel W. Groome was not a resident of or doing business in the west- ern district of Pennsylvania, but was residing, and had a long time prior thereto resided, at Philadelphia, in the eastern dis- trict, and carried on any business in which he may bave been engaged in that city. Your petitioner, therefore, is advised and avers that the presentation of said petition in bankruptcy and the adjudication thereon were irregular and void, inas- much as this honorable court had no jurisdiction to take cog- nizanceof said petition, for the reason that the said petitioner was neither a resident of nor carryiug on business in the dis- trict in which the same was presented." �The prayer of the petition is that the said adjudication may be declared null and void, and wholly vacated and set aside. �Upon the presentation of this petition a rule was obtained upon the bankrupt to show cause why the prayer thereof should not be granted. At the return of the rule on March 6, 1880, the bankrupt filed an answer, and at the same time moved the court to dismiss Carter's petition, which motion was argued by the counsel of the respective parties. Other motions were made and argued at the same time, but the motion to dismiss Mr. Carter's petition is to be first consid- ered and disposed of. �Samuel W. Groome filed his petition in bankruptcy on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1878. He therein states his residence to be the city of Philadelphia, but alleges that he has carried on business in the western district of Pennsylva- nia, at Williamsport, for six months next immediately pre- ceding the filing of his petition. Upon the face of the petition �v.l,no.7— 30 ��� �