TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Norris

In re Norris, 177 F. 598 (W.D.N.Y. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, W.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
April 6, 1910
Docket
No. 3,508
Judges
Hazel
Citations
177 F. 5981910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 371
Disposition
Granted.
Headnotes
1. Bankruptcy (§ 288*) — Transfer of Assets — Claim Against Third Person. Where a bill of sale executed by a bankrupt to bis wife was claimed to be in fraud of creditors, tbe referee was authorized to grant an order against tbe wife to show cause why such sale should not be set aside and to assert her claim to tbe property. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 447; Dec. Dig. § 288.*] 2. Bankruptcy (§ 293*) — Jurisdiction—Claims by Third Persons. The bankruptcy court has power to ascertain whether an adverse claim to property of the bankrupt, made by a third person in possession, is in fact well founded, or is fictitious or colorable. [Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 411, 417; Dee. Dig. § 293.*] 3. Bankruptcy (§ 301*) — Assets—Disposition—Injunction. Where a bankrupt’s transfer of assets to his wife was claimed to be in fraud of creditors, and tbe trustee was about to bring a plenary action against tbe wife to recover tbe property, tbe bankruptcy court was authorized, by Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 23b, 30 Stat. 552 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3431), as amended by Act Cong. Feb. 5, 1903, c. 487, § 8, 32 Stat. 798 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1312), to restrain tbe wife’s disposition of the property during the pendency of such suit. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 4G4; Dec. Dig. § 301.*]
Summary
In the matter of the bankruptcy proceedings of Patrick J. Norris. On motion to continue a stay restraining disposition of property in possession of a third person claiming adversely.

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

Opinion of the Court — Hazel

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

HAZEL, District Judge.

The trustee of the bankrupt herein claims that the bill of sale executed by the bankrupt to his wife was in fraud of creditors, and that the injunction heretofore issued under section 2, subd. 15 (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 545 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421]), should be continued until the title to the property specified in the bill of sale can be determined in a plenary action. The adverse claimant is the wife of the bankrupt, who has possession of the property and claims title thereto under a bill of sale to her from the bankrupt.

In view of the facts, as I understand them, an order to show cause by the referee in bankruptcy directed to Mrs. Norris to assert her claim would not have been improper. In Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1 , 22 Sup. Ct. 269, 46 L. Ed. 405 , the Supreme Court decided that the court had power to require the deliverance of property to the bankruptcy court, where such property was held for and on account of the bankrupt. The court has power to ascertain, if an adverse claim be made by a third person in possession of the property, whether such claim is in fact well founded, or if it is fictitious or colorable. Such *599 procedure was not adopted herein, and the moving papers indicate that a plenary action lias been or will be begun by the trustee against the adverse claimant.

Under the circumstances, it would seem that the only safe way to protect the rights of the creditors is to continue the injunction until the rights of the parties have been determined by a proper tribunal. Formerly it was doubtful whether a court of bankruptcy could take jurisdiction to restrain the disposition of property in possession of a third person claiming title thereto; but the case of Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188 , 21 Sup- Ct. 557, 45 U- Fd. 814, and the amendment of 1903 (Act Feb. 5, 1903, c.187, § 8, 32 Stat. 798 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909. p. 1312]) to section 23b of the bankruptcy act, removes any doubt that may theretofore have existed as to such power. If the proposed sale of the property, which is in the possession of the wife of the bankrupt herein, is not enjoined during the pendency of the plenary action, it is not difficult to perceive that the interests of the general creditors are liable to suffer. Collier on Bankruptcy (7th Fd.) p. 50. The contemplated action by the trustee should be brought within 10 days and be vigilantly prosecuted, and on this condition the injunction will be continued until the further order of the courts

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

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

1930: 11932: 11937: 11940: 11946: 119302026peak 1930 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Metzger's, Inc.68 F. Supp. 663 (W.D. Mich. 1946)
  2. Steelman v. All Continent Corp.301 U.S. 278 (1937)
  3. Sproul v. Gambone34 F. Supp. 441 (W.D. Pa. 1940)
  4. In re Paramount Fireproof Door Co.43 F.2d 558 (E.D.N.Y. 1930)
  5. In re Custom Shop, Inc.1 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1932)

Most recent

  1. In re Metzger's, Inc.68 F. Supp. 663 (W.D. Mich. 1946)
  2. Sproul v. Gambone34 F. Supp. 441 (W.D. Pa. 1940)
  3. Steelman v. All Continent Corp.301 U.S. 278 (1937)
  4. In re Custom Shop, Inc.1 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1932)
  5. In re Paramount Fireproof Door Co.43 F.2d 558 (E.D.N.Y. 1930)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U.S. 1 (1902) 506
Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U.S. 188 (1901) 185

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