In re Kalb & Berger Mfg. Co.
| Citation | 165 F. 895 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | 77. |
| Parties | In re KALB & BERGER MFG. CO. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
F. W Hamberg, for petitioner.
J. H Hickey, for respondent.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
The petitioner brought an action in a Municipal Court of the City of New York against Charles Weiser individually, and as receiver of the bankrupt corporation, to recover upon an agreement for the use of certain premises for the storage of property of the bankrupt estate. The District Court, upon the application of the defendant in said action, in his capacity of receiver, enjoined the prosecution of said action, and summarily determined the amount due the petitioner for the use of said premises. This is a petition to review such action of the District Court.
While ordinarily, a receiver acting within his powers is not personally liable upon his contracts, yet he may so contract as to bind himself; and if he acts beyond his powers he necessarily assumes individual responsibility. The action in the Municipal Court, in so far as it was against the defendant personally, could not be stayed by the District Court. The power conferred by the bankruptcy act to determine controversies with respect to the collection and distribution of the bankrupt estate cannot be extended to confer jurisdiction to stay proceedings against officers in their individual capacities. It may be that in this case the receiver acted within the scope of his authority and was not personally liable. If so, the Municipal Court will undoubtedly decide in his favor. But the fact that the receiver might interpose a good defense to the personal action against him gave the bankruptcy court no power to enjoin the prosecution of such action.
The order of the District Court, staying the action in the Municipal Court in so far as it was brought against the receiver as such, presents a more difficult question, in view of the fact that leave does not appear to have been granted to bring such action. Suits against receivers, as a general rule, cannot be brought in any other court than that of their appointment, without leave previously obtained from such court. An exception to this rule exists under certain conditions in case of federal receivers. The statute (Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, Sec. 2, 24 Stat. 554, and Act Aug. 13 1888, c. 866, Sec. 2, 25 Stat. 436 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 582)) provides in substance that a receiver appointed in a federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Markos Gurnee Partnership
...with no input from the bankruptcy court. This was the holding of an early case decided under the Bankruptcy Act, In re Kalb & Berger Manufacturing Co., 165 F. 895 (2d Cir.1908). In Kalb & Berger, a party with whom the bankruptcy receiver allegedly contracted for storage services sued the tr......
-
In re Jefferson Cnty.
...by a federal court. See, e.g., Investment Registry v. Chicago & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 204 F. 500, 507 (E.D.Wis.1913); In re Kalb & Berger Mfg. Co., 165 F. 895, 896 (2d Cir.1908). With only one exception, this remained true after the statute was revised in 1948. See, e.g., SEC v. Lincoln Thrift ......
-
Stephens v. Walker
... ... 1014; In re T.L. Kelly Dry-Goods ... Co. (D.C.Wis.1900) 102 F. 747.' In re Kalb, etc., ... Mfg. Co. (C.C.A.N.Y.1908) 165 F. 895." 28 USCA § 125, ... "The section applies to ... care and preservation of the property of the estate. In ... re Kalb & Berger Mfg. Co. (N.Y.1908) 165 F. 895, 91 ... C.C.A. 573; In re Roberts (N.Y.1909) 169 F. 1022, 94 ... ...
-
Beck Industries, Inc., In re
...sued the trustee for his breach of the bankrupt's obligation to refrigerate the leased premises. Relying in part on In re Kalb & Berger Mfg. Co., 165 F. 895 (2 Cir.1908), Judge L. Hand said [m]erely to hold matters in statu quo; to mark time, as it were; to do only what is necessary to hold......