Jones v. Kansas City Custom Garment Making Co.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 246.,246. |
| Citation | 1 F.2d 649 |
| Parties | JONES v. KANSAS CITY CUSTOM GARMENT MAKING CO. et al. In re R. GOTTLIEB CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Arthur Miller, Frank P. Barker, and Miller, Camack, Winger & Reeder, all of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.
Ed. E. Aleshire and Samuel Feller, both of Kansas City, Mo., for respondents.
Before STONE and KENYON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District Judge.
This is a petition to revise under section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9608). The petition and response show the following facts:
On July 14, 1922, an involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed against R. Gottlieb Company in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. That court appointed Edwin D. Buell receiver of the property of the R. Gottlieb Company. It was adjudicated a bankrupt on October 2, 1922. On October 20, 1922, Buell was elected trustee.
On July 20, 1922, Buell, as receiver, filed his petition in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, for the appointment of an ancillary receiver, and on the same day Joseph M. Jones, the petitioner here, was appointed receiver.
Supplemental to said order of appointment, the court made a general order of reference to George A. Neal, as referee in bankruptcy. Jones qualified as such ancillary receiver on August 4, 1922. Thereafter he filed an application with George A. Neal, as referee in bankruptcy, for an order on the Kansas City Custom Garment Making Company, a corporation, Max Goldberger, and Joseph Goldberger, respondents here, to show cause why an order should not be made requiring them to turn over certain property claimed by the receiver to belong to the bankrupt estate. Respondents filed an answer to the show cause order, wherein they challenged the jurisdiction of the referee to act in the premises, and also set up an adverse claim to the property.
The referee overruled the challenge to the jurisdiction, and after a hearing, on November 11, 1922, made orders requiring the respondents to turn over to Jones, as such receiver, certain property or its value in money.
Respondents filed their petition with the referee to certify his order to the District Court for review. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in the bankruptcy court, based on the findings of fact made by the referee, wherein he asked for a provisional order that the respondents be required to give bond to comply with any order which the court might make in the premises or any judgment that might thereafter be entered against them. On May 11, 1923, the court made such provisional order based on the findings of the referee.
On July 17, 1923, the bankruptcy court set aside and vacated the orders made by the referee and its order of May 11, 1923, requiring the respondents to give bond, on the ground that the referee had no jurisdiction in the premises. It is this order which petitioner here seeks to revise.
The order of general reference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Sumner
...implication conferred by statute. Chicago Bank of Commerce v. Carter, 61 F.2d 986, 988 (8th Cir. 1932); Jones v. Kansas City Garment Making Co., 1 F.2d 649 (8th Cir. 1924). Under section 60b of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. § 96b)3, for instance, the court may authorize, via the trustee in ......
-
United States v. Louisville & J. Bridge & R. Co.
... ... If an engine alone were making this transfer, its travel, between the two yards, ... ...