Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

216 F. 883

Docket No. 2086.

Austrian v. Central Trust Co.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided August 12, 1914.)

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1914-08-12

Petition to Review and Revise Order of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois, in Bankruptcy. In the matter of bankruptcy proceedings of Bertha S. Orr and Hannah Store, doing business as the Lake Shore Catering Company.

2 counsel of record

Relies on Borland v. Central Trust Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed · Decided 1914-08-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1983

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

3019141920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1Petition to Review and Revise Order of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois, in Bankruptcy.

¶2In the matter of bankruptcy proceedings of Bertha S. Orr and Hannah Store, doing business as the Lake Shore Catering Company. Mamie R. Austrian filed an adverse claim to certain chattels in the possession of the Central Trust Company of Illinois as the bankrupts’ trustee, and, such claim being denied, filed a petition to review and revise.

¶3Dismissed.

¶4Carl Meyer, of Chicago, Hi., for petitioner.

¶5Fred D. Silber and Clarence J. Silber, both of Chicago, Ill., for respondent

¶6Before 'BAKER, SEAMAN, and MACK, Circuit Judges.

¶7BAKER, Circuit Judge.

¶8This petition to review and revise presents a situation in all material respects exactly the same as that considered in the Case of the Breyer Printing Co. (No. 2084) 216 Fed. 878, herewith decided. For the reasons therein set forth, we are constrained to hold that the matter before the District Court in bankruptcy was a “controversy arising in the course of bankruptcy proceedings,” and not a “proceeding in bankruptcy.”

¶9Tlie petition to review and revise is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

/216/f1d/883 · .json · Public domain