Wight v. Street
Decision Date | 30 January 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 6791.,6791. |
Citation | 63 F.2d 80 |
Parties | WIGHT v. STREET. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
C. H. Sooy, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Charles H. Patterson and M. Harris Callum, both of Oakland, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.
The trustee in bankruptcy filed a petition for a summary order requiring appellant, Florence A. Wight, a stranger to the proceeding, to show cause why an order should not be made in such proceeding determining that said appellant had no right, title, or interest of any kind in and to certain real property located on Market street, in the city of Oakland, Cal., and requiring said appellant to forthwith make, execute, and deliver unto the said trustee a proper deed of conveyance of said property. Later an amended petition was filed, alleging that on August 8, 1930, at the time of her adjudication as a bankrupt and for a long time prior thereto, the said bankrupt, Mintie E. Frisbie (hereinafter referred to as the bankrupt), was the owner and possessed of the above-mentioned real property. An order to show cause was duly issued and served. Appellant, appearing specially, filed her return to the order to show cause challenging the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to adjudicate the merits of her claim to the property in question in a summary proceeding without her consent. The motion was overruled. The trustee called as witnesses, among others, the bankrupt and the appellant. Appellant is the adopted daughter of the bankrupt.
The bankrupt testified that on August 15, 1913, she executed a declaration of trust covering the property in question, in words and figures as follows:
The bankrupt testified that this instrument was given to her former husband to be combined with one he was supposed to execute in favor of appellant; that the document was returned to and retained by the bankrupt; that years before these proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted, the bankrupt...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pinsky v. Duncan
...to file an intervenor's brief in this appeal, consistent with our resolution of a similar problem in Merrill v. Town of Addison, 63 F.2d 80, 82-83 (2d Cir.1985). The state elected to intervene, and we give careful consideration to its arguments in this A. Deprivation of a Protected Property......
-
Federal Shopping Way, Inc., Matter of
...Cobra Manufacturing Co., 214 F.2d 489, 491 (9th Cir.1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 912, 75 S.Ct. 291, 99 L.Ed. 715 (1955); Wight v. Street, 63 F.2d 80, 81 (9th Cir.1933). Consequently, where property is outside of the court's possession and the trustee claims no interest in the property what......