Goggin v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp.

Ninth Circuit

Goggin v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp.

190 F.2d 553, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 1951

Docket12624_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 190 F.2d 553 (Goggin v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goggin v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp., 190 F.2d 553, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3603 (9th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a reversal by the district court of an order of a bankruptcy referee directing the turnover of a sum of money found to be owing the bankrupts by appellee Consolidated on open account. Prior to the bankruptcy the United States Maritime Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S. C.A. § 51, had notified Consolidated to withhold any moneys claimed to be due the bankrupts. In the summary proceeding before the referee, in which the United States intervened, it was developed that substantial questions exist whether Consolidated owes or is obliged to pay any sum to the bankrupt estate. Objection was timely made to the exercise of summary jurisdiction. The district court on proceedings to review held that the claim which the United States was making on Consolidated was substantial, not merely colorable, hence both those parties were entitled to have their rights adjudicated in a plenary suit.

The ruling was obviously correct, Cline v. Kaplan, 323 U.S. 97, 65 S.Ct. 155, 89 L.Ed. 97; Harrison v. Chamberlin, 271 U.S. 191, 195, 46 S.Ct. 467, 70 L.Ed. 897, and the order reversing the referee is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a reversal by the district court of an order of a bankruptcy referee directing the turnover of a sum of money found to be owing the bankrupts by appellee Consolidated on open account. Prior to the bankruptcy the United States Maritime Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S. C.A. § 51, had notified Consolidated to withhold any moneys claimed to be due the bankrupts. In the summary proceeding before the referee, in which the United States intervened, it was developed that substantial questions exist whether Consolidated owes or is obliged to pay any sum to the bankrupt estate. Objection was timely made to the exercise of summary jurisdiction. The district court on proceedings to review held that the claim which the United States was making on Consolidated was substantial, not merely colorable, hence both those parties were entitled to have their rights adjudicated in a plenary suit.

The ruling was obviously correct, Cline v. Kaplan, 323 U.S. 97, 65 S.Ct. 155, 89 L.Ed. 97; Harrison v. Chamberlin, 271 U.S. 191, 195, 46 S.Ct. 467, 70 L.Ed. 897, and the order reversing the referee is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 F.2d 553, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goggin-v-consolidated-liquidating-corp-ca9-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack