TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Young

In re Young, 96 F. 606 (E.D.N.Y. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, E.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
August 9, 1899
Judges
Thomas
Citations
96 F. 6061899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 355
Cited by 3
Headnotes
Bankruptcy— Pees and Costs — Disbursements of Attaching Creditor. Wiiere the lien of an attachment is dissolved by the adjudication of the debtor as a bankrupt, the creditor has no lien upon the property of the bankrupt for the costs and disbursements incurred by him in such suit, and is not entitled to an order requiring the trustee to pay him the amount of such costs out of the estate.
Summary
In Bankruptcy. On petition ol! Francis Doherty & Co., creditors of the bankrupt, for an order directing the trustee in bankruptcy to pay to them the sum of $236, being the amount of costs and disbursements incurred by them in an attachment suit which they had been prosecuting against the bankrupt, but which was terminated, and the lien of the attachment dissolved, by the adjudication following within four months after the commencement of such suit.,

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

Opinion of the Court — Thomas

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

THOMAS, District Judge.

The motion herein is denied. The fees are an incident of the lien. When the lien fails, the incident fails also. It is not apparent that the estate has been benefited by an expense of $236, made in an attachment proceeding in an action to collect the sum of $392.50. However, the main question passed upon ⅛ the nonexistence of a lien. If the petitioners desire to review the question, the trustee will retain a sufficient sum to meet the claim, if the appellate court should consider the demand or any part thereof justly payable.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1901: 11907: 11924: 119012026peak 1901 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Bennett153 F. 673 (6th Cir. 1907)
  2. In re Daniels110 F. 745 (D.R.I. 1901)
  3. In re Whitley2 F.2d 889 (W.D. Tenn. 1924)

Most recent

  1. In re Whitley2 F.2d 889 (W.D. Tenn. 1924)
  2. In re Bennett153 F. 673 (6th Cir. 1907)
  3. In re Daniels110 F. 745 (D.R.I. 1901)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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