Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

131 F. 654

In re Sutter Bros.

New York Southern District Court

Decided April 28, 1904.)

New York Southern District Court · decided 1904-04-28

<p>Sutter Bros., a corporation, was adjudged a bankrupt in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Receivers were appointed by that court, and the receivership extended to property in the Southern District of New York on application made to the District Court of that district by petitioning creditors. Various orders were made in the Southern District of New York, in the proceeding, relating to property in that district, after which an application was made by a creditor to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Bankr. Act, § 21a, for the examination of witnesses, which application was granted ex parte, and an order made accordingly, after which the bankrupt moved to vacate such order for lack of jurisdiction. Motion denied.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““On the 28th day of February, 1908, a petition in involuntary bankruptcy was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Madson Steele Company, and in due course the said corporation was adjudicated a bankrupt, and Frank M. McKey was appointed its trustee in bankruptcy. Application was made to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for an authorization to examine pursuant to the provision of section 21a of the national Bankruptcy Act, the officers of a New York corporation which it was alleged had, within four months prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, received a payment under circumstances which would permit of recovery by the trustee in bankruptcy as a voidable preference. These officers were residents of the Southern district of New York. The application in the Southern district of New York was made on behalf of the trustee of the bankrupt’s estate, whielr was being administered in tile Northern district of Illinois, and the order proposed for signature required the examination of witnesses within the jurisdiction of the District Court for the Southern district of New York, and the production of books and vouchers which contained transactions between the bankrupt corporation and the New York corporation. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to direct the appearance and examination of the said witnesses, on the ground that it had no jurisd”

quoted by 1 later decision, including In re FLAHERTY

Relies on In re Williams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1904-04-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1920

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

30190419101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Bankruptcy — Courts—Ancillary Jurisdiction.

¶2"Where proceedings were bad in a federal District Court other than that in which a corporation was adjudged a bankrupt, by which a receivership was extended to property located in such other district, and various other orders were made by such court, it had ancillary jurisdiction to grant a creditor’s application for the examination of witnesses as authorized by Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 21a, 30 Stat. 552 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3431].

¶3Sutter Bros., a corporation, was adjudged a bankrupt in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Receivers were appointed by that court, and the receivership extended to property in the Southern District of New York on application made to the District Court of that district by petitioning creditors. Various orders were made in the Southern District of New York, in the proceeding, relating to property in that district, after which an application was made by a creditor to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Bankr. Act, § 21a, for the examination of witnesses, which application was granted ex parte, and an order made accordingly, after which the bankrupt moved to vacate such order for lack of jurisdiction. Motion denied.

¶4Stern, Sanger & Barr (William J. Barr, of counsel), for the motion.

¶5Lesser Bros. (William Lesser, of counsel), opposed.

¶6HOLT, District Judge!

¶7I think that the order of this court making the Chicago receivers, receivers here, and the various orders made herd since, make this a case pending in this court in such a sense as to authorize th'e order objected to, to be made. Even if no previous proceedings had been had in this court, I think that such an order could be made *655here if previously authorized in the court where the proceeding is pending. With sincere respect for the court rendering the opinion in In re Williams, 10 Am. Bankr. R. 538, 123 Fed. 321, I cannot concur in it.

¶8Motion denied.

/131/f1d/654 · .json · Public domain