Harold G. Soderling and Eric F. Wilkinson v. Kal W. Lines, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Harris Airmotive, Inc., a Corporation, Bankrupt

Ninth Circuit

Harold G. Soderling and Eric F. Wilkinson v. Kal W. Lines, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Harris Airmotive, Inc., a Corporation, Bankrupt

423 F.2d 719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1970

Docket22959_1

StatusPublished

This text of 423 F.2d 719 (Harold G. Soderling and Eric F. Wilkinson v. Kal W. Lines, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Harris Airmotive, Inc., a Corporation, Bankrupt) 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

Harold G. Soderling and Eric F. Wilkinson v. Kal W. Lines, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Harris Airmotive, Inc., a Corporation, Bankrupt, 423 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The district court’s order upholding the order of the federal bankruptcy referee is affirmed. A California state court determined that the bankrupt was indebted to the appellants Soderling, et al., to the extent of about $36,000.00. The state court went on to adjudicate that the sum should be impressed as a lien on the assets of the bankrupt in the hands of the trustee.

We need not decide what the situation would be if the state court had exclusive custody of some assets of the bankrupt. Here it had none. In our situation, the state court had jurisdiction to determine a rescission of certain contracts and to adjudge an amount due. But it had no jurisdiction over the assets. Guiding principles can be found in U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Bray, 225 U.S. 205, 32 S.Ct. 620, 56 L.Ed. 1055.

Rescission was necessary to create a lien on the assets. By the time judgment for rescission was entered, the assets were in the hands of the federal court, leaving the federal court the only one with jurisdiction to adjudge priorities and liens against assets. If the purported lien had been established before the bankruptcy, we would have a different case.

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

PER CURIAM:

The district court’s order upholding the order of the federal bankruptcy referee is affirmed. A California state court determined that the bankrupt was indebted to the appellants Soderling, et al., to the extent of about $36,000.00. The state court went on to adjudicate that the sum should be impressed as a lien on the assets of the bankrupt in the hands of the trustee.

We need not decide what the situation would be if the state court had exclusive custody of some assets of the bankrupt. Here it had none. In our situation, the state court had jurisdiction to determine a rescission of certain contracts and to adjudge an amount due. But it had no jurisdiction over the assets. Guiding principles can be found in U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Bray, 225 U.S. 205, 32 S.Ct. 620, 56 L.Ed. 1055.

Rescission was necessary to create a lien on the assets. By the time judgment for rescission was entered, the assets were in the hands of the federal court, leaving the federal court the only one with jurisdiction to adjudge priorities and liens against assets. If the purported lien had been established before the bankruptcy, we would have a different case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 F.2d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-g-soderling-and-eric-f-wilkinson-v-kal-w-lines-trustee-in-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack