In re Caplan
| Decision Date | 02 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4862.,4862. |
| Citation | 23 F.2d 680 |
| Parties | In re CAPLAN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
W. Conwell Smith, of Baltimore, Md., for petitioner.
Musgrave, Bowling & Hessey, of Baltimore, Md., for master.
This is a proceeding brought by the assignee of a landlord to obtain priority of payment of rent out of the assets of the bankrupts located in the ancillary jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, which rent was due prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy. From the petition, the following facts appear:
On March 7, 1923, the bankrupts, Caplan & Rudolph, leased from one Horn certain premises in the city of Washington, D. C., for five years, at the rental of $500 per month. The lease was assigned to the petitioner for collection of rent and general enforcement. On December 23, 1926, the lessees were adjudicated bankrupts in the District Court for the District of Maryland. The December rent was then unpaid. G. W. Musgrave, the defendant herein, was appointed receiver in Maryland, and ancillary receiver in the District of Columbia. As the result of a petition filed in the District by the present petitioner for priority of payment of the rent, the referee there held that such should be allowed by virtue of section 1229 of the District of Columbia Code, hereinafter quoted. The present petition is to require the receiver to pay the claim before removing the bankrupts' funds from the District, and commingling them with the general funds of the estate in Maryland.
Under section 64b(7) of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 104), if the state law gives a lien or a priority, it will be recognized. In re U. S. Lumber Co. (D. C.) 206 F. 236. Nothing in section 67 of the act (11 USCA § 107) prevents enforcement of a landlord's lien for rent, since it must be treated as having been given in good faith, within the exception of section 67d. Courtney v. Fidelity Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 219 F. 57; In re Mt. Winans Lumber Co. (D. C.) 228 F. 831.
The local law of the place where the property is situated governs as to whether there is a lien or not. Longstreth v. Pennock, 20 Wall. 575, 22 L. Ed. 451; In re Chaudron & Peyton (D. C.) 180 F. 841, 24 Am. Bankr. Rep. 811. Therefore the law of the District of Columbia governs in this case. The construction placed upon the Maryland statute, however similar that law may be, can have no effect. Section 1229 of the District of Columbia Code provides:
"The landlord shall have a tacit lien for his rent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Heintzelman Const. Co.
...right was wholly a local question, and the Federal court will observe it. In re United States Lumber Co., D.C., 206 F. 236. In re Caplan, D.C., 23 F.2d 680. As liens, assuming these claims amount to such, they are not affected by the Bankruptcy Act, Sec. 67, sub. b, of the Bankruptcy Act, S......
-
Wallace T. Bruce, Inc. v. Najarian
...the bankrupt is subject to a lien is determined by the local law of the place where it is situated, under the Bankruptcy Act. In re Caplan, D.C.D.Md., 23 F.2d 680. Plaintiff, as appellant, upon the record submitted herein, is entitled to a vacation of the stay of proceedings entered by the ......
-
Elmira Corporation v. Bulman
...asserted its claim for rent, and the method employed by the landlord here was upheld in a similar case construing our statute. In re Caplan, D.C., 23 F.2d 680. Inasmuch as the lien here was perfected and had attached before the landlord filed its proof of claim, under § 45-915 the lien reta......
- Ross v. United States