In re Ellis Bros. Printing Co.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1907 |
| Docket Number | 2,513. |
| Citation | 156 F. 430 |
| Parties | In re ELLIS BROS. PRINTING CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Joseph H. Morey, for trustee.
Eugene Warner and Charles W. Strong, for respondent.
Upon the authorities cited in the report of the master the bankruptcy court has power to inquire into the facts for the purpose of determining whether any basis exists for the adverse claim of title to the property asserted by the respondent. The mere assertion of an adverse claim of title even with an intention to protect it by the usual process of law, will not preclude the bankruptcy court from exercising its power to proceed summarily. In re Andre, 135 F 736, 68 C.C.A. 374. It is only when the evidence indicates that the asserted claim is not false or fraudulent that the bankruptcy court is deprived of jurisdiction. If it should appear from the proofs that the respondent, Strong, refuses to surrender the money collected by him to the trustee simply on the ground that the title to the same is conclusively evidenced by his possession of it, or if the claim is unreal or colorable, then it is the duty of this court to direct its payment to the trustee. This principle of law is so clearly and definitely stated by the Supreme Court in Mueller v Nugent, 184 U.S. 1, 22 Sup.Ct. 269, 46 L.Ed. 405, that no other citations are thought necessary.
In the prior cases decided by this court, in passing upon the right to exercise summary jurisdiction, it was not intended to be understood as holding that, irrespective of whether the elicited facts were sufficient in law, the mere assertion of an adverse claim of title or ownership deprived the court of summary power. If the proofs show that in fact there is no legal basis for the asserted adverse claim, the summary power of the court is not defeated. In Re Andre, supra, the principal question in controversy, as I read the case, was whether before adjudication the sheriff should be required by the bankruptcy court to release his levy; he being an adverse claimant under an attachment and claiming that he had a lien upon the property levied upon for poundage. The court held that the sheriff had a right to retain the property, not only until the attachment was dissolved, but until he was required to surrender it by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The position of the respondent, as appears by his answer, is that he collected the money of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. Henderson
...574; Id., 195 U. S. 171, 25 S. Ct. 15, 49 L. Ed. 144; Hebert v. Crawford, 228 U. S. 204, 33 S. Ct. 484, 57 L. Ed. 800; In re Ellis Bros. Printing Co. (D. C.) 156 F. 430. It may disregard the assertion that the claim is adverse, if on the undisputed facts it appears to be merely colorable. I......
-
In re Southern Metal Products Corporation, 6049.
...130 F. 328; Id., 195 U.S. 171, 25 S.Ct. 15, 49 L.Ed. 144; Hebert v. Crawford, 228 U.S. 204, 33 S.Ct. 484, 57 L.Ed. 800; In re Ellis Bros. Printing Co. (D.C.) 156 F. 430. It may disregard the assertion that the claim is adverse, if on the undisputed facts it appears to be merely colorable. I......
-
Teasdale v. Robinson, 16636.
...130 F. 328; Id., 195 U.S. 171 25 S.Ct. 15, 49 L.Ed. 144; Hebert v. Crawford, 228 U.S. 204 33 S.Ct. 484, 57 L.Ed. 800; In re Ellis Bros. Printing Co. D.C., 156 F. 430. It may disregard the assertion that the claim is adverse, if on the undisputed facts it appears to be merely colorable. In r......