Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 F.2d 1016

Docket No. 5698.

Forcey v. Silberblatt

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 12, 1935.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1935-06-12

2 counsel of record

Relies on Silberblatt v. Forcey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Joseph Buffington · Decided 1935-06-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1986

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

20193519401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1A. M. Liveright and Liveright & Smith, all of Clearfield, Pa., for appellants.

¶2Charles A. Woods, Jr., and J. Roy Dickie, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., N. F. Womer, of Du Bois, Pa., and Dickie, Robinson & McCamey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

¶3Before BUFFINGTON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and FORMAN, District Judge.

¶4BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

¶5In this case it appears that on December 1, 1933, a petition in involuntary bankruptcy was filed in the court below against Henry Boardman Powell, and on January 9th following he was adjudged bankrupt. It further appears that the bankrupt had been, and was, an executor of Thomas H. Forcey and that the orphans’ court of Clearfield county, which had jurisdiction in Forcey’s estate, surcharged Powell in a large sum and on November 24, 1933, ordered him, on or before December 4th following, to secure said indebtedness by first mortgages on his real estate. Such mortgages to his coexecutor Powell gave on December 18th following. Thereafter his trustee in bankruptcy filed the present bill against the executors of Forcey’s estate and set them aside. After hearing, the court sustained the bill and entered its decree vacating the mortgages and ordering them delivered up for cancellation. Thereupon the executors took this appeal.

¶6The opinion of the court, 11 F. Supp. 484, marshals and discusses the authorities and vindicates the decree entered;, such opinion holding: “The Jurisdiction, of the bankruptcy court over the property of the bankrupt from the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy is exclusive and paramount to that of all other courts.” On the trial judge’s opinion we affirm the decree below.

/78/f2d/1016 · .json · Public domain