In re Canariate

S.D. New York

In re Canariate

6 F. Supp. 692, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1051

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedSeptember 21, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 F. Supp. 692 (In re Canariate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Canariate, 6 F. Supp. 692, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1051 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOLSEY, District Judge.

This petition to review is denied.

Under the language of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Re Messinger, 29 F.(2d) 158, at page 160, 68 A. L. R. 1205, I should have said — before the decision of United States Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Ruggles, 258 N. Y. 32, 179 N. E. 250, 79 A. L. R. 802 — that the express reservation to the bankrupt of the surrender value in the policy before me herein would have caused it to go to the trustee subject to the ransom provisions of section 70a of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended by Act May 27, 1926 (11 USCA § 110 (a). But since the decision in the Ruggles Case in which Judge Pound construed the extent of the exemption under section 55-a of the New York Insurance Law, see 258 N. Y. at page 39, 179 N. E. 250, 252, the decision of the referee seems to me inevitable.

Exemption laws involve state considerations solely, and the federal courts have always recognized and respected such laws both under executions and in bankruptcy. Holden v. Stratton, 198 U. S. 202, 204, 214, 25 S. Ct. 656, 657, 659, 49 L. Ed. 1018. In this proceeding, therefore, the construction given to the New York state exemption law as to insurance policies by the New York courts controls.

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

WOOLSEY, District Judge.

This petition to review is denied.

Under the language of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Re Messinger, 29 F.(2d) 158, at page 160, 68 A. L. R. 1205, I should have said — before the decision of United States Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Ruggles, 258 N. Y. 32, 179 N. E. 250, 79 A. L. R. 802 — that the express reservation to the bankrupt of the surrender value in the policy before me herein would have caused it to go to the trustee subject to the ransom provisions of section 70a of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended by Act May 27, 1926 (11 USCA § 110 (a). But since the decision in the Ruggles Case in which Judge Pound construed the extent of the exemption under section 55-a of the New York Insurance Law, see 258 N. Y. at page 39, 179 N. E. 250, 252, the decision of the referee seems to me inevitable.

Exemption laws involve state considerations solely, and the federal courts have always recognized and respected such laws both under executions and in bankruptcy. Holden v. Stratton, 198 U. S. 202, 204, 214, 25 S. Ct. 656, 657, 659, 49 L. Ed. 1018. In this proceeding, therefore, the construction given to the New York state exemption law as to insurance policies by the New York courts controls.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. Supp. 692, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-canariate-nysd-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack