Ginger v. Guardian Steel Corp.

Sixth Circuit

Ginger v. Guardian Steel Corp.

325 F.2d 664

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 1963

DocketNo. 15202

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 325 F.2d 664 (Ginger v. Guardian Steel Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ginger v. Guardian Steel Corp., 325 F.2d 664 (6th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER.

We have heretofore held that the orders entered by the bankruptcy court could not be collaterally attacked. 296 F.2d 107 (CA 6). The complaint nevertheless attempts, for a second time, to collaterally attack orders entered by the bankruptcy court. General allegations of fraud and deceit were made, but not supported by evidence although the District Court gave plaintiffs ample opportunity to supply it.

The complaint further sought to recover damages for malicious prosecution of the bankruptcy proceeding and for fraud and deceit of defendants in connection therewith. These allegations were not supported by evidence.

The plaintiffs sued as stockholders, officers, directors and creditors of Ginger Machine Products Corporation, a Michigan corporation which later was adjudicated bankrupt in a different proceeding from the one under attack here. All of the plaintiffs and defendants in the present case were residents of Michigan except the plaintiff, John J. Ginger.

We are of the opinion that the District Court was correct in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment as there was no genuine issue of fact.

In addition to the reasons given by the District Court, jurisdiction was lacking in the tort action for damages because there was no diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs were attempting to assert a cause of action title to which was in the bankrupt corporation and not in them. The bankruptcy proceeding was closed on March 12, 1959 and the present action was not brought within the time required by law. M.S.A. § 27.605, Comp.Laws 1948, § 609.13.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

ORDER.

We have heretofore held that the orders entered by the bankruptcy court could not be collaterally attacked. 296 F.2d 107 (CA 6). The complaint nevertheless attempts, for a second time, to collaterally attack orders entered by the bankruptcy court. General allegations of fraud and deceit were made, but not supported by evidence although the District Court gave plaintiffs ample opportunity to supply it.

The complaint further sought to recover damages for malicious prosecution of the bankruptcy proceeding and for fraud and deceit of defendants in connection therewith. These allegations were not supported by evidence.

The plaintiffs sued as stockholders, officers, directors and creditors of Ginger Machine Products Corporation, a Michigan corporation which later was adjudicated bankrupt in a different proceeding from the one under attack here. All of the plaintiffs and defendants in the present case were residents of Michigan except the plaintiff, John J. Ginger.

We are of the opinion that the District Court was correct in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment as there was no genuine issue of fact.

In addition to the reasons given by the District Court, jurisdiction was lacking in the tort action for damages because there was no diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs were attempting to assert a cause of action title to which was in the bankrupt corporation and not in them. The bankruptcy proceeding was closed on March 12, 1959 and the present action was not brought within the time required by law. M.S.A. § 27.605, Comp.Laws 1948, § 609.13.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F.2d 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginger-v-guardian-steel-corp-ca6-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack