In re Madigan
| Decision Date | 01 August 1918 |
| Citation | 254 F. 221 |
| Parties | In re MADIGAN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Edward F. Lindsay, of New York City, for judgment creditor.
Barney & Schuldenfrei, of New York City, for bankrupt.
The judgment here was for negligence, due to the reckless driving of an automobile, and is in my opinion dischargeable in bankruptcy. The bankrupt was arrested under an order of the state court made prior to the filing of his voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the Eastern district, and is now on the jail limits. That proceeding has now gone to adjudication, and, under my decision in Matter of Margiasso, 38 Am.Bankr.Rep. 524, 242 F. 990, the bankrupt may be released pending his application for a discharge, unless the court is without jurisdiction because the bankruptcy proceedings are not in this district. Under the decision in Re Von Hartz, 142 F. 726, 74 C.C.A. 58, I would be without jurisdiction, and the amendment of 1910 (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544, as amended by Act June 25, 1910, c. 412, 36 Stat. 838), which only extended ancillary jurisdiction 'in aid of a receiver or trustee,' would not avail. But that decision has been expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U.S. at page 114, 30 Sup.Ct.
372, 54 L.Ed. 402, 17 Ann.Cas. 969. I think, if a bankrupt has the substantive right to relief, there is, under the doctrine of Babbitt v. Dutcher, supra, a remedy in this court ancillary to the proceeding in the Eastern district.
The motion is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panagopulos v. Manning
...upon the reckless, negligent and unlawful operation of an automobile does not bring it within the exception of the statute. In re Madigan (D. C.) 254 F. 221; In re Cunningham (D. C.) 253 F. 663; In Roberts (D. C.) 290 F. 257; Ex parte Harrison , supra; Ely v. O'Dell, supra; Tippett v. Sylve......
-
Lewis v. Roberts
...C. C. A. 541; In re Putnam (D C.) 193 F. 464, 468. And see In re Lorde (D. C) 144 F. 320; Ex parte Margiasso (D C.) 242 F. 990; In re Madigan (D. C.) 254 F. 221. We think these prior decisions were Section 63a of the Bankruptcy Act,1 entitled 'Debts Which May be Proved,' provides that: 'Deb......
-
In re Wegner, 5838.
...for the safety of others, and a willingness to inflict the injury complained of." See, also, In re Wilson, 269 F. 845 (D.C.); In re Madigan, 254 F. 221 (D.C.); Fleshman v. Trolinger, 18 Tenn. App. 208, 74 S.W.(2d) The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court in the instant case are......
-
In re Storch
...borough, one of five constituting the city of New York. It seems to me, the writ should be sustained and relator discharged. In Re Madigan (D. C.) 254 F. 221, the relator was confined within the jail limits and yet he was discharged. Relator is still in the custody of the sheriff and is not......