In re Hayes
| Citation | 192 F. 1018 |
| Parties | In re HAYES. |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1912 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
This is a motion in the Southern District of New York to vacate an order appointing Edward M. Meek ancillary receiver of the assets of the alleged bankrupt. A petition was filed against the bankrupt in the District Court of New Jersey on the 29th day of January, 1912, praying that he be adjudicated a bankrupt. Upon that petition and other papers, the District Court for the District of New Jersey appointed Edward M. Meek receiver. It does not appear whether in New Jersey the receiver has ever taken possession of any assets or that there are any assets there and the alleged bankrupt asserts that there are none such. Upon the same day the petitioners in that proceeding obtained from this court an order appointing Edward M. Meek ancillary receiver, and he has taken certain measures in this jurisdiction to reduce to possession certain stock registered in the name of the alleged bankrupt. The bankrupt now moves in this district to vacate the appointment of the ancillary receiver upon the merits, alleging that the alleged bankrupt is amply solvent and he has committed no act of bankruptcy, also insisting that, even if the ancillary receivership be maintained, the petitioners be compelled to give a bond to answer for the costs.
Robert P. Levis, for alleged bankrupt.
Harold Remington, for respondent.
HAND District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The case is not of power, but of that much abused word 'comity.' I have no doubt that this court has jurisdiction in a pressing case whenever necessary to vacate its own order appointing an ancillary receiver, but I think that it ought not to do so where the controlling consideration is of the propriety of any receivership at all. In granting an ancillary receivership the court ordinarily looks at nothing except the pendency of a proceeding in the parent district, the appointment there of a receiver, and the presence of assets in the district where the application is made. The court quite literally makes itself a handmaid of the other court, and ordinarily exercises no independent jurisdiction or even discretion. If a motion were made to vacate an ancillary receivership because it turned out that one of the facts was absent which the court actually considered-- as that there were no assets within the ancillary jurisdiction-- then the ancillary court would vacate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wechsler v. Wechsler
...court had rendered judgment, an ancillary receiver was appointed in Texas to preserve a company's Texas assets); See also In Re Hayes , 192 F. 1018 (Dist. Ct. S.D.N.Y. 1912) ("In granting an ancillary receivership the court ordinarily looks at nothing except the pendency of a proceeding in ......
-
Wechsler v. Wechsler, Docket No. 44297
...court had rendered judgment, an ancillary receiver was appointed in Texas to preserve a company's Texas assets); See also In Re Hayes, 192 F. 1018 (Dist. Ct. S.D.N.Y. 1912) ("In granting an ancillary receivership the court ordinarily looks at nothing except the pendency of a proceeding in t......
-
In re Retail Chemists Corporation
...Rubber Company on this appeal. The first ground for reversal urged by the appellant we do not need to discuss at length. In Re Hayes (D. C.) 192 F. 1018, at page 1019, it was said that: "In granting an ancillary receivership the court ordinarily looks at nothing except the pendency of a pro......