In re Von Hartz
| Citation | 142 F. 726 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 1905 |
| Docket Number | 86. |
| Parties | In re VON HARTZ et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
James A. Douglas, for appellant.
Seymour K. Fuller, for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
Inasmuch as both sides concurred, upon the argument, in requesting that, in case it were found that appeal would not lie, the notice of appeal be treated as a petition to review, it will not be necessary to discuss the question whether the proper method to secure a review is by petition or appeal.
On July 13, 1904, Von Hartz and his partner were adjudicated bankrupts in a proceeding in involuntary bankruptcy duly instituted in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which court on August 8, 1904, appointed a trustee in bankruptcy. Upon the petition of the trustee an order to show cause was issued by the district judge of the Southern district of New York, in which no proceeding against the bankrupts were pending, directed to the appellant, and upon the return day thereof, after hearing both sides, an order was entered summarily directing the appellant to turn over to the trustee a policy of life insurance upon the life of Von Hartz and payable at his death to his executors, administrators, or assigns, which policy had theretofore been assigned by Von Hartz to appellant. It is contended that the District Court in the Southern District of New York had no jurisdiction to make such an order.
The precise question raised here has been carefully considered in Re Williams (D.C.) 120 F. 38, and in Re Williams (D.C.) 123 F. 321. We fully concur with the reasoning in those causes, and are clearly of the opinion that the District Court, in the case at bar, had no jurisdiction to make the summary order now under review.
Order reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Dempster
...1046; In re Williams (D.C.) 123 F. 321, approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, in the case of In re Von Hartz, 142 F. 726, 74 C.C.A. 58. also, In re Williams (D.C.) 120 F. 38; In re Schrom (D.C.) 97 F. 760. Any proceeding necessary for the protection of the estate h......
-
In re Logan
... ... Application ... was made to the district judge on petition for an order ... directing the delivery of the books and records and this was ... denied. The Supreme Court reversed, and held that the order ... should have been granted; there being no adverse title ... asserted. In Re Von Hartz et al., 142 F. 726, 74 ... C.C.A. 58, referred to in the opinion in Babbitt v ... Dutcher, supra, 216 U.S. 114, 30 Sup.Ct. 372, 54 L.Ed ... 402, 17 Ann.Cas. 969, the policy of insurance was in the ... actual possession of the assignee thereof who held and ... claimed under a written ... ...
-
In re Flaherty
... ... originally enacted, had no ancillary jurisdiction beyond ... their territorial limits in aid of bankruptcy courts in other ... districts than their own. In re Williams (D.C.) 120 ... F. 38; In re Williams (D.C.) 123 F. 321; In re ... Sutter Bros. (D.C.) 131 F. 654; In re Von Hartz et ... al., 142 F. 726, 74 C.C.A. 58 (C.C.A. 2d Circuit). But ... in Babbitt, Trustee, v. Dutcher, 216 U.S. 102, 30 ... Sup.Ct. 372, 54 L.Ed. 402, 17 Ann.Cas. 969, and Elkus, ... Petitioner, v. Madson Steele Co., Bankrupt, 216 U.S ... 115, 30 Sup.Ct. 377, 54 L.Ed. 407, it is held that the ... ...
-
Hull v. Burr
... ... him, he stands in the position of those whose rights he has ... [153 F. 952.] ... acquired, and can resort only to the same courts, state or ... federal, and is confined to the same remedies. In re ... Williams (D.C.) 120 F. 38; In re Williams ... (D.C.) 123 F. 321; In re Von Hartz, 142 F. 726, ... 74 C.C.A. 58; In re Granite City Bank, 137 F. 818, ... 822, 70 C.C.A. 316. This general rule is, of course, subject ... to the exceptions made by the amendment of 1903, which has ... been quoted in this opinion and shown not to be applicable to ... this case ... The ... ...