TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elkus

Elkus, Petitioner. (In the Matter of the Madson Steele Company, Bankrupt.)

Elkus, 216 U.S. 115 (1910)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 21, 1910
Docket
No. 238
Judges
Fuller
Citations
216 U.S. 11530 S. Ct. 37754 L. Ed. 4071910 U.S. LEXIS 1876
Syllabus
On the authority of Babbiil v. Dutcher, ante, p. 102, held that: A court of bankruptcy has jurisdiction to grant an order for examination of a witness who resides in that district although the bankrupt proceedings in which the examination is desired are being administered- in another district. The respective District Courts of the United States sitting in bank- - ruptcy have ancillary jurisdiction to make orders and issue process in aid of proceedings pending and being administered in the District Court of another district.
Summary
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT-OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

The certificate, with the accompanying statement of facts, is as follows:

“On the 28th day of February, 1908, a petition in involun *116 tary bankruptcy was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against the Madson Steele Company, and in due course the said corporation was adjudicated a bankrupt, and Frank M. McKey was appointed its trustee in bankruptcy.

“Application was made to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for an authorization to examine, pursuant to the provision of section 21a of the national bankruptcy act, the officers of a New York corporation which it was alleged had, within four months prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy received a payment under circumstances which would permit of recovery by the trustee in bankruptcy as a voidable preference. These officers were residents of the Southern District of New York.

“The application in the Southern District of New York was' made on behalf of the trustee of the bankrupt’s estate, which was being administered in the Northern District of Illinois, and thé order proposed for signature required the examination of witnesses within the jurisdiction of the District Court .for the Southern District of New York and the production of books and vouchers which contained transactions between the bankrupt corporation and the New York corporation. ’

“The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to direct the appearance and examination of the said witnesses on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to grant an order for examination in a proceeding which was not pending within its own district, and from the order denying the right tp examine the petition to review was taken to this court.

“The questions submitted are:

“I. Did the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have jurisdiction to grant an order for. the examination of witnesses, who were residents of that district, when the bankrupt proceedings in which the examination was desired were being administered in the Northern District of Illinois?

*117 “II. Have the respective District Courts of the United States sitting in bankruptcy ancillary jurisdiction to make orders and issue process in aid of proceedings pending and being administered in the District Court of another district?”

On the authority of Babbitt, Trustee, v. Dutcher, just decided, ante, p. 102, we answer both questions in the affirmative, and it will be So certified.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1910: 11912: 21913: 11914: 31916: 41917: 11918: 21920: 11921: 11924: 11925: 11926: 11931: 21932: 31933: 11934: 11955: 11989: 12001: 119102026peak 1916 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Daniel49 F.2d 866 (8th Cir. 1931)
  2. In re FLAHERTY265 F. 741 (N.D. Iowa 1920)
  3. In re Einstein245 F. 189 (N.D.N.Y. 1917)
  4. The Inter-State National Bank of Kansas City v. Frank Luther, Trustee, Matter of Garden Grain & Seed Company, Inc., Bankrupt221 F.2d 382 (10th Cir. 1955)
  5. In re Schulte-United59 F.2d 553 (8th Cir. 1932)
  6. In re Insull Utility Investments, Inc.27 F. Supp. 887 (S.D.N.Y. 1934)

Most recent

  1. In re Fred Ayers Co.266 B.R. 557 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2001)
  2. In re Texas International Co.97 B.R. 582 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1989)
  3. The Inter-State National Bank of Kansas City v. Frank Luther, Trustee, Matter of Garden Grain & Seed Company, Inc., Bankrupt221 F.2d 382 (10th Cir. 1955)
  4. In re Insull Utility Investments, Inc.27 F. Supp. 887 (S.D.N.Y. 1934)
  5. In re Louis K. Liggett Co.4 F. Supp. 695 (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
  6. In re Schulte-United59 F.2d 553 (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 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