Frank v. Drinc-O-Matic, Inc.

Second Circuit

Frank v. Drinc-O-Matic, Inc.

136 F.2d 906, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3168

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1943

Docket289

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 136 F.2d 906 (Frank v. Drinc-O-Matic, 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

Frank v. Drinc-O-Matic, Inc., 136 F.2d 906, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3168 (2d Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order in bankruptcy, directing the sale for $9500 of nineteen automatic vending machines belonging to the debtor, which were in the possession of their manufacturer, who claimed a lien upon them in the sum of $4,754.79. It is not necessary to state in detail the evidence which justified the sale in the minds of the special master and the district judge who confirmed his report. Notice of the application was given to all known creditors, and the situation of the debtor was such as might well make it desirable to release the machines from the vendor’s claim even if its validity was questionable, which there is no reason to suspect. The trustee had no funds with which to redeem the machines, and after six months no plan of reorganization had been proposed. Possibly, though not certainly, the sale will force on a liquidation; in any event that is not a controlling consideration. The petition having been approved, the court had power to sell any property of the debtor, “upon such terms and conditions as the judge may approve.” § 116 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 516(3). To succeed the appellants must persuade us to substitute our discretion for that of the district court, and that under familiar principles we should not, and will not do.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order in bankruptcy, directing the sale for $9500 of nineteen automatic vending machines belonging to the debtor, which were in the possession of their manufacturer, who claimed a lien upon them in the sum of $4,754.79. It is not necessary to state in detail the evidence which justified the sale in the minds of the special master and the district judge who confirmed his report. Notice of the application was given to all known creditors, and the situation of the debtor was such as might well make it desirable to release the machines from the vendor’s claim even if its validity was questionable, which there is no reason to suspect. The trustee had no funds with which to redeem the machines, and after six months no plan of reorganization had been proposed. Possibly, though not certainly, the sale will force on a liquidation; in any event that is not a controlling consideration. The petition having been approved, the court had power to sell any property of the debtor, “upon such terms and conditions as the judge may approve.” § 116 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 516(3). To succeed the appellants must persuade us to substitute our discretion for that of the district court, and that under familiar principles we should not, and will not do.

Order affirmed.

In the Matter of Northern Illinois Development Corporation, an Illinois Corporation, Operating the Aurora Downs, Inc. (A Wholly Owned Subsidiary), Debtor. Sportservice Corporation, Creditor-Appellant v. Northern Illinois Development Corporation, Debtor-Appellee. J. C. Granata, Shareholder-Appellant v. Northern Illinois Development Corporation, Debtor-Appellee. Orville P. Fox and St. Charles National Bank, Trustee Under Trust No. 85, Creditors-Appellants v. Northern Illinois Development Corp., Debtor-Appellee. Charles P. McFarland Shareholder-Appellant v. Northern Illinois Development Corp., Debtor-Appellee

324 F.2d 104 (Seventh Circuit, 1963)

Sportservice Corp. v. Northern Illinois Development Corp.

324 F.2d 104 (Seventh Circuit, 1963)

Matter Of Marathon Foundry & Machine Company

239 F.2d 122 (Seventh Circuit, 1957)

Marathon Foundry and Machine Company v. Schwartz

228 F.2d 594 (Seventh Circuit, 1956)

Marathon Foundry & Machine Co. v. Schwartz

228 F.2d 594 (Seventh Circuit, 1955)

In Re Solar Mfg. Corp.

176 F.2d 493 (Third Circuit, 1949)

In Re v. Loewer's Gambrinus Brewery Co.

141 F.2d 747 (Second Circuit, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F.2d 906, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-drinc-o-matic-inc-ca2-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack