TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Hall

In re Hall, 170 F. 721 (S.D.N.Y. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
June 7, 1909
Judges
Hand
Citations
170 F. 7211909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 291
Headnotes
Bankruptcy (§ 391*) — Stay op Proceedings Againsi: Bankrupt — “Dih-CJIARGKABTJG DEBTS” — FINE FOR COVIEUP'I. A fine imposed on a bankrupt. although after the filing of the pelition against him. by a state court for a criminal contempt is not a dischargea-ble debt under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 513, § 17a, 30 Stat. 550 (ü. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428), and proceedings for its enforcement will not be stayed by the court of bankruptcy, if the contempt have itself occurred prior to the filing of the petition. [Kd. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §| 019-054; Dec. Dig. § 391.*]
Summary
In Bankruptcy. On motion to vacate stay.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hand

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

HAND, District Judge.

In re Koronsky (C. C. A.) 170 Fed. 719 , governs this case, although it is true that the contempt there preceded the filing of the petition. That makes no difference, because though the stay would prevent any further steps from being taken in the action, yet if, prior to the stay, the bankrupt had actually disobeyed the order of the court, his punishment must be entirely for the court. It can make no difference that the court has not fixed this punishment prior to the stay itself.

It is also true that in the case at bar the attorney may have been in contempt for moving the bankrupt’s punishment, but this is not a motion to punish him for disobedience of that order. I do not think, therefore, that the case at bar is distinguishable.

The bankrupt asserts, however, 1hat he permitted the order punishing him to he entered, because he relied upon the stay, that he had a good excuse for failing to obey the order of the state court, and that he should not now, having acted in reliance upon the order of this court, be deprived of its protection. The matter is one of jurisdiction, and this court cannot retain jurisdiction, even in the interests of equity. No doubt, if the facts are as the bankrupt asserts in his papers, the state court will give him a fair hearing upon a motion to reopen that order, but whether it does or not can make no difference in the disposition of this motion, for I cannot assume an improper jurisdiction in order to prevent the chance of another court’s dealing unfairly with the bankrupt. I must assume that the state court is quite as able to consider his excuse as the court of bankruptcy, and he will without doubt be able to get from that court such modification of its order as in justice he should. He has lost nothing by the lapse of time, since an appeal would have been quite fruitless, and his only effective course is to reopen the order, which course is still free to him.

The motion for a reargument is granted, and the stay is vacated in so far as it forbids the creditor Montgomery from proceeding to enforce the punishment of the bankrupt for contempt of the order of the state court.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →
1913: 11921: 11925: 11931: 11933: 11937: 11940: 11946: 11954: 11968: 11974: 11977: 11980: 21982: 11983: 11984: 11986: 11987: 11996: 12014: 219132026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dumas v. Atwood (In re Dumas)19 B.R. 676 (9th Cir. BAP 1982)
  2. John David v. The Hooker, Ltd Hooker Music, Ltd., Ronald Haffkine, Non-Party560 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1977)
  3. Foerst v. Clowser (In re Clowser)39 B.R. 883 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1984)
  4. Parker v. United States153 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1946)
  5. Thruway Messenger Service, Inc. v. Marini (In re Marini)28 B.R. 262 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1983)
  6. Dock C-Food Ltd. v. Cherry (In re Cherry)78 B.R. 65 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)

Most recent

  1. Yellow Express, LLC v. Dingley (In re Dingley)514 B.R. 591 (9th Cir. BAP 2014)
  2. In re Mark DingleyNo. NV-13-1261-KiJuTa (9th Cir. BAP Aug. 6, 2014)
  3. In re Hyo Jin Moon201 B.R. 79 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996)
  4. Dock C-Food Ltd. v. Cherry (In re Cherry)78 B.R. 65 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)
  5. International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co.62 B.R. 723 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
  6. Foerst v. Clowser (In re Clowser)39 B.R. 883 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1984)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Koronsky, 170 F. 719 (2d Cir. 1909) 19

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