159 F.1d 500 - In re Pennell — 159 F. 500

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1954

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

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.

¶1Bankruptcy — Restraining Order — Enforcement op Attorney’s Lien.

¶2A court of bankruptcy will not by a restraining order interfere with the carrying into effect of a valid order of a state court, based on a finding that attorneys for a bankrupt are entitled to a lien on a judgment recovered for him prior to the bankruptcy.

¶3In Bankruptcy. On motion to vacate restraining order.

¶4Pratt & Koehler, for the motion.

¶5Isaac Phillips, opposed.

¶6LANNING, District Judge.

¶7After examining the papers in this case and hearing counsel, I have reached the conclusion that the restraining order of March 4, 1907, should be vacated so that the order of the New York City Court dated February 27, 1907, may have due effect. That court plainly had jurisdiction of the, proceedings in which the order was made. The order was based on an opinion by that court in which the conclusion was expressed that the bankrupt’s attorneys had a lien upon the judgment which the bankrupt had previously recovered against Kneeland & Kneeland. The proofs before me amply sustain the conclusion of that court.

¶8An order may be presented to me vacating and setting aside the restraining order of March 4, 1907.