Crane v. Tannenbaum

S.D. California

Crane v. Tannenbaum

151 F. Supp. 725, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3615

DecidedJune 11, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 151 F. Supp. 725 (Crane v. Tannenbaum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crane v. Tannenbaum, 151 F. Supp. 725, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3615 (S.D. Cal. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVET, District Judge.

This is an action by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover $3,802.74 allegedly paid by the bankrupt to the defendants in violation of Section 70, sub. e of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 110, sub. e, and Section 15 of the New York Stock Corporation Law, McK.Consol.Laws, c. 59. Defendant Goldweber moves for an order dismissing the action or to quash the return of the service of the summons on jurisdictional grounds.

Since the bankrupt was a New York corporation and the defendants are citizens of New York, diversity of citizenship is lacking despite the fact that the trustee is a citizen of New Jersey. Stiefel v. 14th Street & Broadway Realty Corporation, 2 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 1041. Consequently, jurisdiction must be predicated solely upon Section 70, sub. e of the Bankruptcy Act. Although this court has jurisdiction to entertain the action, there remains for consideration the question of venue. “Where * * * the action is not local, as where the trustee seeks a simple money judgment * * * for payments of money made in fraud of creditors, the general venue, section 1391, requiring suit to be brought, in the defendant’s district would seem to-be clearly applicable.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, 14 Ed., p. 478.

In the instant case, it appears that all', of the defendants reside in the Eastern District of New York. Therefore, the-suit is hereby transferred to said district in accordance with Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1406(a).

Defendant Goldweber’s motion is denied in all other respects.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LEVET, District Judge.

This is an action by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover $3,802.74 allegedly paid by the bankrupt to the defendants in violation of Section 70, sub. e of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 110, sub. e, and Section 15 of the New York Stock Corporation Law, McK.Consol.Laws, c. 59. Defendant Goldweber moves for an order dismissing the action or to quash the return of the service of the summons on jurisdictional grounds.

Since the bankrupt was a New York corporation and the defendants are citizens of New York, diversity of citizenship is lacking despite the fact that the trustee is a citizen of New Jersey. Stiefel v. 14th Street & Broadway Realty Corporation, 2 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 1041. Consequently, jurisdiction must be predicated solely upon Section 70, sub. e of the Bankruptcy Act. Although this court has jurisdiction to entertain the action, there remains for consideration the question of venue. “Where * * * the action is not local, as where the trustee seeks a simple money judgment * * * for payments of money made in fraud of creditors, the general venue, section 1391, requiring suit to be brought, in the defendant’s district would seem to-be clearly applicable.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, 14 Ed., p. 478.

In the instant case, it appears that all', of the defendants reside in the Eastern District of New York. Therefore, the-suit is hereby transferred to said district in accordance with Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1406(a).

Defendant Goldweber’s motion is denied in all other respects.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 F. Supp. 725, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-v-tannenbaum-casd-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack