Biderman v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 18 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 2629. |
| Citation | 273 F. 683 |
| Parties | BIDERMAN v. COOPER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Henry H. Wittstein, of Trenton, N.J., for plaintiff in error.
Edwin C. Long, of Trenton, N.J., for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
After an order restraining the bankrupt from interfering with the assets of the estate, the bankrupt secretly went to a safe deposit box (which he had rented under a fictitious name) and extracted, or otherwise handled, certain of its contents. On discovering this, the trustee filed a petition with the court stating the facts and praying for an order upon the bankrupt to show cause why an attachment for contempt should not issue against him, and asking for such other relief as might be necessary. At the hearing, the court found the bankrupt guilty of contempt-- mainly on his own testimony-- and sentenced him to prison. Thereupon, the bankrupt sued out this writ of error, raising several questions, only two of which merit consideration.
The first is, whether under Section 41b of the Bankruptcy Act (30 Stat. 544 (Comp. St. Sec. 9625)) the contempt proceeding was defective because it was not instituted upon a certificate of the referee. Section 41a commands obedience to the orders of a referee and forbids misbehavior of parties when before him. Section 41b prescribes the procedure in contempt for violations of the provisions of Section 41a. The thing which the bankrupt did in the instant case was not 'any of the things forbidden in this section. ' It was an alleged violation of an order of the court for which the bankrupt was answerable directly to the court in a proceeding for contempt, whether civil or criminal, there begun otherwise than on a referee's certificate.
The next question is, whether the proceeding was for civil contempt or for criminal contempt; and whether, if for the former, the court erred in imposing a sentence applicable to the latter.
There was no question about the facts, and in the mind of the court there seems to have been little question of the bankrupt's guilt of a contumacious act violative of the court's injunction. The only question before us therefore is the one we have just stated.
We are of opinion that the principles announced by the Supreme Court in Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 31 Sup.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 874, extended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donato v. United States
...act is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court, the contempt is criminal. In re Kahn et al. (C. C. A). 204 F. 581; Biderman v. Cooper (C. C. A.) 273 F. 683; Doyle v. London Guarantee, etc., Co., 204 U. S. 605, 27 S. Ct. 313, 51 L. Ed. 641; Gompers v. Buck's Stove, etc., Co., 221 U......
-
Marcus v. Pennsylvania Trust Co., 3636.
...the court of bankruptcy in this proceeding for contempt did not have jurisdiction under section 41b of the Bankruptcy Act. Biderman v. Cooper (C. C. A.) 273 F. 683. Turning to section 2 of the act whereby District Courts of the United States are made courts of bankruptcy with jurisdiction (......
-
Davidson v. Wilson
...213 F. 753, 130 C.C.A. 267, certiorari denied, see Kaplan v. Leech, Trustee, 234 U.S. 765, 34 Sup.Ct. 998, 58 L.Ed. 1582; Biderman v. Cooper (C.C.A.) 273 F. 683. In latter case the contempt proceedings were instituted by a trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of the bankrupt estate and the......
-
In re Fox, 6473.
...found him guilty of criminal contempt only. The second part of the order is purely remedial and not punitive. In the case of Biderman v. Cooper, 3 Cir., 273 F. 683, we held that the court could not find the contemnor guilty of civil contempt and impose upon him a punitive sentence, for crim......