Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

142 F. 726

Docket No. 86.

In re Hartz

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided December 21, 1905.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1905-12-21

<p>Bankruptcy — Administration op Estate — Jurisdiction op Court — Ancillary Proceedings in Another District.</p> <p>A district court lias no ancillary jurisdiction under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418], to make a summary order on the application of the trustee of a bankrupt whose estate is being administered in another district requiring a person to turn over property to the trustee*</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 · In re Williams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1905-12-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1920

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

40190519101920decided

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 →

¶1Bankruptcy — Administration op Estate — Jurisdiction op Court — Ancillary Proceedings in Another District.

¶2A district court lias no ancillary jurisdiction under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418], to make a summary order on the application of the trustee of a bankrupt whose estate is being administered in another district requiring a person to turn over property to the trustee*

¶3*727Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

¶4James A. Douglas, for appellant.

¶5Seymour K. Fuller, for appellee.

¶6Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM.

¶8Inasmuch as both sides concurred, upon the argument, in requesting that, in case it were found that appeal would not lie, the notice of appeal be treated as a petition to review, it will not be necessary to discuss the question whether the proper method to secure a review is by petition or appeal.

¶9On July 13, 1904, Von Hartz and his partner were adjudicated bankrupts in a proceeding in involuntary bankruptcy duly instituted in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which court on August 8, 1904, appointed a trustee in bankruptcy. Upon the petition of the trustee an order to show cause was issued by the district judge of the Southern district of New York, in which no proceeding against the bankrupts was pending, directed to the appellant, and upon the return day thereof, after hearing both sides, an order was entered summarily directing the appellant to turn over to the trustee a policy of life insurance upon the life of Von Hartz and payable at his death to his executors, administrators, or assigns, which policy had theretofore been assigned by Von Hartz to appellant. It is contended that the District Court in the Southern District of New York had no jurisdiction to make such an order.

¶10The precise question raised here has been carefully considered in Re Williams (D. C.) 120 Fed. 38, and in Re Williams (D. C.) 123 Fed. 321. We fully concur with the reasoning in those causes, and are clearly of the opinion that the District Court, in the case at bar, had no jurisdiction to make the summary order now under review.

¶11Order reversed.

/142/f1d/726 · .json · Public domain