Drincup Vendors, Inc. v. Fountain Machines, Inc.

Second Circuit

Drincup Vendors, Inc. v. Fountain Machines, Inc.

134 F.2d 823, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1943

DocketNo. 205

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 F.2d 823 (Drincup Vendors, Inc. v. Fountain Machines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drincup Vendors, Inc. v. Fountain Machines, Inc., 134 F.2d 823, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692 (2d Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On July 31, 1942 the district court entered an order approving the petition of Fountain Machines, Tnc., as properly filed under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., and staying all suits against the debtor. Thereafter Drincup Vendors, Inc., moved that the general stay be lifted to permit it to prosecute an action previously commenced in a state court against the debtor and one Hollinger. This is an appeal from a denial of that motion. Summons in the state court action had been served on the debtor only and the complaint had not been filed or served. From the moving affidavit it appears that the action “is predicated upon breach of two written contracts as well as tort.” In Chapter X proceedings the district judge has discretion to stay all suits against the debtor. 11 U.S.C.A. § 516(4). We can upset the stay only if discretion was abused. The appellant has not established such abuse in the case at bar. The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On July 31, 1942 the district court entered an order approving the petition of Fountain Machines, Tnc., as properly filed under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., and staying all suits against the debtor. Thereafter Drincup Vendors, Inc., moved that the general stay be lifted to permit it to prosecute an action previously commenced in a state court against the debtor and one Hollinger. This is an appeal from a denial of that motion. Summons in the state court action had been served on the debtor only and the complaint had not been filed or served. From the moving affidavit it appears that the action “is predicated upon breach of two written contracts as well as tort.” In Chapter X proceedings the district judge has discretion to stay all suits against the debtor. 11 U.S.C.A. § 516(4). We can upset the stay only if discretion was abused. The appellant has not established such abuse in the case at bar. The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 F.2d 823, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drincup-vendors-inc-v-fountain-machines-inc-ca2-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack