Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

243 F. 797

Docket No. 23714.

In re Cooper

Massachusetts District Court

Decided February 28, 1917.)

Massachusetts District Court · decided 1917-02-28

<p>In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the bankruptcy of Nathan Cooper. Proceeding to review order of referee denying claim of common-law assignee.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Randolph v. Scruggs

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Order reversed, and claim allowed · Decided 1917-02-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander (1991), Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis (1995)

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

13019171920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 <@=>347—Preferred Claims—Claims ov Assignee.

¶2A claim for the necessary expouse for an appraisal of the property of a bankrupt, which prior to bankruptcy was transferred to> a common-law assignee, is entitled to be preferred, though iiresented by the appraiser directly against the bankrupt estate; for such appraisal was for the benefit, not only of the assignee, but of the bankrupt estate, establishing the amount and value of the property.

¶3In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the bankruptcy of Nathan Cooper. Proceeding to review order of referee denying claim of common-law assignee.

¶4Order reversed, and claim allowed.

¶5Leon R. Eyges, of Boston, Mass., for common-law assignee.

¶6George I. Cohen, of Boston, Mass., for trustee.

¶7MORTON, District Judge.

¶8The common-law assignee sold all the chattel property and reduced the entire estate to money. An adequate appraisal of the property which originally came into his hands seems to have been desirable, both for his protection and for the information of the trustee, if bankruptcy proceedings should be instituted. The charge for it appears reasonable, and there is no suggestion that the amount is excessive, or that the work was not well done. It seems to me that in this case an appraisal was reasonably necessary, in connection with the proper preservation and care of the property received by the assignee, and that the assignee, if he had paid the expense of it, should have been allowed therefor in his account with the trustee. If so, under Randolph v. Scruggs, 190 U. S. 533, 539, 23 Sup. Ct. 710, 47 L. Ed. 1165, the claim is entitled to be preferred, although presented by the appraiser directly against the bankrupt estate.

¶9The order of the referee is reversed, and the claim is allowed.

/243/f1d/797 · .json · Public domain