In re Squier
| Decision Date | 28 November 1908 |
| Parties | In re SQUIER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
James Schell & Elkus (Abram I. Elkus, of counsel), for receiver.
Alexander & Ash (Mark Ash and William Ash, of counsel), for Ferdinand Gutmann & Co.
Rollins & Rollins (Frank A. Gaynor and Alfred A. Wheat, of counsel) for Windsor Trust Co.
This is an application on the part of the receiver in bankruptcy to compel the Windsor Trust Company to turn over to the receiver in bankruptcy certain certificates for 150 shares of stock in the Queens County Trust Company, and for an adjudication that Ferdinand Gutmann & Co. have no claim to said shares of stock. The situation has arisen in the following way:
Frank Squier was thrown into bankruptcy on February 21, 1908, by the filing of an involuntary petition in this court. Upon November 21, 1907, Squier had made an agreement with the Windsor Trust Company and with Ferdinand Gutmann & Co., under which agreement Squier deposited the certificates for the 150 shares of stock with the Windsor Trust Company, to be held to await the outcome of two suits brought by the said Ferdinand Gutmann & Co. against another corporation and two individual one of whom, Mr. William M. McCord, filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upon the 14th day of December, 1907. It appears that in the two actions mentioned attachments had been obtained and levied on the property of McCord on the 14th day of November, 1907, a few days before Mr. Squier made the agreement in question, and it appears from the record that Squier was desirous of becoming surety for the release of these attachments; that, instead of qualifying in the usual way, he, although a third party deposited these certificates of stock under agreement, and that the attachments were vacated and the property taken under attachment released. Both the Windsor Trust Company and Ferdinand Gutmann & Co. have appeared upon this motion, and have objected to the jurisdiction of this court, and contend that a question of title is involved which cannot be disposed of summarily; while the receiver insists that the property pledged or deposited was that of the bankrupt, over which this court has complete jurisdiction, and that title did not pass by the agreement in question, a copy of which is submitted. The Windsor Trust Company and Ferdinand Gutmann & Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schaffer v. Hughes
...liability asserted is contingent. Jaquith v. Rowley, 188 U.S. 620, 23 S.Ct. 369, 47 L.Ed. 620; In re Horgan, 1 Cir., 158 F. 774; In re Squier, D.C., 165 F. 515; In re Detroit Waterproof Fabric Company, D.C., 295 F. 338; In re Horgan, 1 Cir., 164 F. In Jaquith v. Rowley, supra, the bankrupt,......
-
In re Radley Steel Const. Co.
...upon motion. In re Horgan et al., 158 F. 774, 86 C.C.A. 130; Jaquith v. Rowley, 188 U.S. 620, 23 Sup.Ct. 369, 47 L.Ed. 620; In re Squier (D.C.) 165 F. 515. deposits claimed to have been created for a specific purpose, but held by the bank generally in the name of the bankrupt, and, without ......