TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wood v. Natural Soda Products Co.

WOOD, Superintendent of Banks of California v. NATURAL SODA PRODUCTS CO.

Wood v. Natural Soda Prods. Co., 31 F.2d 110 (9th Cir. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 25, 1929
Docket
Nos. 5640, 5641, 5642
Judges
Bean, Dietrich, Rudkin
Citations
31 F.2d 1101929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3410

Opinion of the Court — Rudkin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

The question for decision in this ease is simply this: May an equity receiver of a corporation, appointed by a federal court with the consent of the court appointing him and with the consent of the bankruptcy court, resist an involuntary petition in bankruptpy filed against the corporation for which he is receiver under *111 section 18b of tbe Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 41(b)? That section provides that the bankrupt, or any creditor, may appear and plead to the involuntary petition within five days after the return day, or within such further time as the court may allow. So far as we are advised, his right to do so is sustained by all the authorities and denied by none. In re Hudson River Electric Power Co. (D. C.) 173 F. 934 ; In re Gold Run Mining & Tunnel Co. (D. C.) 200 F. 162 ; Blackstone v. Everybody’s Store, Inc. (C. C. A.) 207 F. 752 ; In re Morosco Holding Co. (D. C.) 296 F. 516 ; Central State Bank v. Harrington (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 514 .

If, as held by this court in Petition of Shortridge, 20 F.(2d) 638 , the jurisdiction of courts of bankruptcy established by the Bankruptcy Act is exclusive of all other courts, whether state or federal, it would seem to follow that a court of equity has an unquestioned right to take such steps as may be deemed necessary to protect its jurisdiction, by directing its receiver to resist an involuntary petition in bankruptcy, which may be without merit or wholly unauthorized.

In view of this conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether an appeal should have been allowed in the first instance, or whether such an appeal can be allowed in a matter of this kind by a single Circuit Judge.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11933: 11982: 12026: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hanna v. Brictson Mfg. Co.62 F.2d 139 (8th Cir. 1932)
  2. In re S. W. Straus & Co.67 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1933)
  3. In re a & B Liquidating, Inc.18 B.R. 922 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1982)
  4. In re Deltech Monomers Opco, LLCNo. 26-10182 (Bankr. M.D. La. May 1, 2026)

Most recent

  1. In re Deltech Monomers Opco, LLCNo. 26-10182 (Bankr. M.D. La. May 1, 2026)
  2. In re a & B Liquidating, Inc.18 B.R. 922 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1982)
  3. In re S. W. Straus & Co.67 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1933)
  4. Hanna v. Brictson Mfg. Co.62 F.2d 139 (8th Cir. 1932)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
In re Hudson River Elec. Power Co., 173 F. 934 (N.D.N.Y. 1909) 24
In re Gold Run Mining & Tunnel Co., 200 F. 162 (D. Colo. 1912) 14
Blackstone v. Everybody's Store, Inc., 207 F. 752 (1st Cir. 1913) 12
In re Morosco Holding Co., 296 F. 516 (S.D.N.Y. 1924) 12
In re Shortridge, 20 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1927) 9
Cent. State Bank of Jackson v. Harrington, 4 F.2d 514 (6th Cir. 1925) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list