Case v. Mason

Pee Cueiam. In the above entitled cause it appears that the assignees sent to the creditors individually a statement of the assets and liabilities which they might well suppose would be satisfactory to the creditors, and which appears to have been satisfactory to a large majority of them. The assignees might, therefore, assume that the creditors would not insist upon the inventory and schedule required by Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 237, § 11. The neglect to comply with that section is not necessarily *52 and absolutely a ground of removal of an assignee, as we’ infer from the language of Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 237, § 3, which provides that the court shall remove the assignee in such case “ upon due notice and for cause shown,” and which, we think, leaves it in the discretion of the court to allow the assignee to remain, if his default was unintentional or there was good excuse for it. We think that under the circumstances there was an excuse for the assignees in the present case, and we will not remove them, on condition that they file an inventory and schedule on or before Tuesday, June 23, 1885. Colwell $ Barney, for petitioners. James Tillinghast Sf James M. Morton, for respondents. We are of the opinion that, under the first clause of Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 237, § 3, the assignee cannot be removed for any other cause than a neglect to render an inventory and schedule, the words “ for cause shown ” meaning a cause connected with such neglect. Order accordingly.