Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Liebke v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

As the statute requires that the composition resolution, to be valid, 'must be passed by a majority in number and three-fourths in value of the creditors of the debtor,' the above mode of identifying the creditor and the amount of his debt shows that it is not indispensable that every person contingently interested in a debt of the bankrupt should have notice or take part in the composition proceedings.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Liebke v. Thomas — Opinion of the Court

App. 424, bases its decision mainly on the proposition that Thomas, the present plaintiff, was entitled to notice of the composition meeting, and had no such notice.
The facts in the case are that the composition proceedings took place before or about the time of the maturity of the note. The note was then the property of the Mullanphy Bank. This bank had notice of these proceedings, accepted the composition note of defendants for 30 per cent. of the amount of the debt, according to the terms of the composition, and received the money paid on that note.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature