In re Edelstein

S.D. New York

In re Edelstein

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

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 3, 1926·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

Pincite

18 F.2d 963 (In re Edelstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related