In re Probst
| Decision Date | 12 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | 228. |
| Citation | 205 F. 512 |
| Parties | In re PROBST. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
E Endelman, of New York City, for petitioner.
G. E Quigley, of Union Hill, N.J., for respondent.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
One Kasper and another, creditors of the bankrupt, began an action against him in the City Court. Shortly thereafter a petition in involuntary bankruptcy was filed against him. No receiver was appointed. The bankrupt applied to the bankruptcy court for an order staying the action in the City Court, stating that he was in possession of all the assets listed in his schedules, including the amounts due him on outstanding accounts, and that he was holding the same subject to the orders of the court. The bankruptcy court thereupon on March 11, 1911, made an order staying proceedings in the City Court case for 12 months after adjudication in bankruptcy. Subsequently in the summer of 1912 it appeared upon an examination of the bankrupt that after holding such assets for a considerable time he collected bills receivable and sold a few pieces of furniture, amounting altogether to a sum between $100 and $200, and thereupon, without any application to the court as to what disposition should be made of this money, he appropriated it to his own use and spent it for living expenses. Upon these facts the creditors applied for the order adjudging him to be in contempt, which is now the subject of review.
Generally speaking the misappropriation and dissipation by the bankrupt of funds in custody of the court which he has promised to hold subject to its order might fairly be considered a contempt of court. The difficulty here, however, is that the power of the federal District Courts to punish contempts has been so circumscribed by Congress that it can be exercised only in the cases enumerated in section 725, Rev. Stat. U.S. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583). These cases are:
'Misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, juror, witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of the said courts.'
It seems to us that the bankrupt's misappropriation of the money in his hands is not within the first of these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Reed
...at 1011. See also Matter of Sixth & Wisconsin Tower, Inc., 108 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1939); Morgan v. United States, supra; In re Probst, 205 F. 512 (2d Cir. 1908). Compare Clay v. Waters, Judged by these standards, the order in this case, from one view, may be deficient. It cautions creditors......
-
In re Sixth & Wisconsin Tower
...385, 21 Ann.Cas. 897, but in that case the court found that its order had been violated. A case which is in point is that of In re Probst, 2 Cir., 205 F. 512, 513, where it is "It seems to us that the bankrupt's misappropriation of the money in his hands is not within the first of these cla......
-
Fidelity Mortg. Investors v. Camelia Builders, Inc.
...powers of a federal court, scrupulous attention to the limitations it has imposed would seem to be the proper course." In re Probst, 205 F. 512, 513 (2d Cir. 1913). The contempt powers of a federal court are specifically limited by statute, Berry v. Midtown Service Corp., 104 F.2d 107, 109 ......
-
Griffin v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD CO., VA.
...of the Second Circuit's decision in Berry. The basis of the asserted distinction of Berry was not present in the Second Circuit's earlier Probst decision upon which Berry depended, or in our decision in Buskirk or in those of the First, Seventh and Eighth The holding in Lamb v. Cramer, 285 ......