In re Edelstein

S.D. New York

In re Edelstein

18 F.2d 963, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1748

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedAugust 3, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 F.2d 963 (In re Edelstein) 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 Edelstein, 18 F.2d 963, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1748 (S.D.N.Y. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

KNOX, District Judge.

The report of the referee will be confirmed. In view of the decision in Benedict v. Ratner, 268 U. S. 353, 45 S. Ct. 566, 69 L. Ed. 991, 6 Am. Bankr. Rep. (N. S.) 9, I do not think that any countenance can be given to the practice that prevailed between Levin and the bankrupts. He acquiesced in the use by the bankrupts of moneys that were assigned to him. Such acquiescence, when continued as it was here, was the equivalent of an agreement that the bankrupts might do what they did.

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

KNOX, District Judge.

The report of the referee will be confirmed. In view of the decision in Benedict v. Ratner, 268 U. S. 353, 45 S. Ct. 566, 69 L. Ed. 991, 6 Am. Bankr. Rep. (N. S.) 9, I do not think that any countenance can be given to the practice that prevailed between Levin and the bankrupts. He acquiesced in the use by the bankrupts of moneys that were assigned to him. Such acquiescence, when continued as it was here, was the equivalent of an agreement that the bankrupts might do what they did.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F.2d 963, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edelstein-nysd-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack