TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Hopkins

In re Hopkins, 11 F. Supp. 831 (W.D.N.Y. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, W.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
December 20, 1934
Docket
No. 16620
Judges
Rippey
Citations
11 F. Supp. 8311934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1074

Opinion of the Court — Rippey

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

RIPPEY, District Judge.

The District Court in' which the adjudication in bankruptcy is made and in which the discharge is granted has power, in its discretion, to reopen the closed estate, without notice at any time [In re Rochester Sanitarium & Baths Co. (C. C. A.) 222 F. 22 ; In re Schreiber (C. C. A.) 23 F.(2d) 428 ; certiorari denied Schreiber v. Public Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 277 U. S. 593 , 48 S. Ct. 529 , 72 L. Ed. 1005 ; In re Paine (D. C.) 127 F. 246, 248 ; In re Levy (D. C.) 259 F. 314 ],. upon the presentation of a verified petition, supported by affidavit, of the bankrupt [In re Graff (C. C. A.) 255 F. 241 ], or of a creditor who duly filed and proved his claim in the bankruptcy proceedings [In re Schreiber, supra; In re Graff (C. C. A.) 250 F. 997 ; Schofield v. Moriyama (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 473, 475 ] from which it satis* *832 factorily appears that the estate has not been fully administered [Bankruptcy Act § 2, subd. 8 (11 USCA § 11 (8); In re Schreiber, supra; Schofield v. Moriyama, supra; In re Newton (C. C. A.) 107 F. 429 ; In re O’Connell (C. C. A.) 137 F. 838 ; In re Lighthall (D. C.) 221 F. 791 ], and on no other ground. In re Spicer (D. C.) 145 F. 431 ; In re Sayer (D. C.) 210 F. 397 ; In re Newton, supra. Neither the bankrupt nor adverse claimants should be permitted to oppose an application of a creditor to reopen the case. In re Paine, supra; Hunter v. Commerce Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 55 F.(2d) 1 .

The procedure, upon reopening the case, is for the district judge to refer the matter to the proper referee, who must thereupon call a meeting of creditors to select a new trustee inasmuch as the. old trusteeship is not revived by the reopening. Bankruptcy Act, § 44a (11 USCA § 72 (a); In re Rochester Sanitarium & Baths Co., supra.

In this case, the petition is made ex parte by the bankrupt. It appears from the petition that he was adjudicated bankrupt on December 22, 1930; that a first meeting of creditors was held on January 9, 1931, at which time Howard P. Roberts was appointed trustee; that the discharge was granted July 10, 1931, and the case was closed on October 8, 1931. ' The petition also sets forth that certain real property owned by the bankrupt and his wife as tenants by the entirety was surrendered to his trustee and that the referee determined that the interest of the bankrupt therein was of no value, but that the trustee did not abandon the property and no order of abandonment was entered.

The bankrupt asks for an order reopening the case “and reappointing Howard P. Roberts, as Trustee, for the purpose of abandoning the said real estate.” There is no power in this court to reopen the case for the purpose stated nor to reinstate the trustee.

The application is denied, and the petition dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1940: 11943: 11982: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Malcom48 F. Supp. 675 (E.D. Ill. 1943)
  2. Montney v. Beneficial Finance Co. (In re Montney)17 B.R. 353 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1982)
  3. In re Perlman116 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1940)

Most recent

  1. Montney v. Beneficial Finance Co. (In re Montney)17 B.R. 353 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1982)
  2. In re Malcom48 F. Supp. 675 (E.D. Ill. 1943)
  3. In re Perlman116 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1940)

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 13

DepthCaseCited by
In re Schreiber, 23 F.2d 428 (2d Cir. 1928) 27
In re Paine, 127 F. 246 (W.D. Ky. 1904) 19
In re Newton, 107 F. 429 (8th Cir. 1901) 16
Schofield v. Moriyama, 24 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1928) 9
In re Rochester Sanitarium & Baths Co., 222 F. 22 (2d Cir. 1915) 20
Hunter v. Commerce Trust Co., 55 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1932) 15
In re Graff, 250 F. 997 (2d Cir. 1918) 13
In re Lighthall, 221 F. 791 (N.D.N.Y. 1915) 11
In re Spicer, 145 F. 431 (W.D.N.Y. 1906) 7
In re Graff, 255 F. 241 (2d Cir. 1918) 7
In re Levy, 259 F. 314 (E.D. Pa. 1919) 7
In re O'Connell, 137 F. 838 (1st Cir. 1904) 6
In re Sayer, 210 F. 397 (N.D.N.Y. 1914) 3

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