In re Gallagher

9 F. Cas. 1082, 16 Blatchf. 410, 19 Nat. Bank. Reg. 224, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2137
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided June 11, 1879·No. Case No. 5,192·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, Circuit Judge.

I think the bankrupts are estopped, by the facts shown, from asserting that the right enjoyed by them under the paper signed by the comptroller, dated September 27th, 1S73, is not property in their hands. It may require the execution on their part of such papers as they have executed, dated May 28th. 1S79, and the written permission of the comptroller that such right be transferred, before the property is in such a condition that its salable value can be realized. But, such value, when realized, will be the proceeds of the property of the bankrupts, owned by them when the petition in bankruptcy was filed, quite as much as an equal sum of money to be now received by them for the salable value of such right, on its transfer by them, with the permission of the comptroller, would be the proceeds of such property. That the latter would be the proceeds of such property. I cannot doubt I concur in the views of Judge Choate in his decision. [1087]*1087and am of opinion that the order of May 7th, 1879, and the order of May 26th, 1879, were proper orders. The prayer of the petition of review is denied.

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

In re Gallagher, 9 F. Cas. 1082, 16 Blatchf. 410, 19 Nat. Bank. Reg. 224, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2137 (circtsdny 1879).

9 F. Cas. 1082 (In re Gallagher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Olewine
125 F. 840 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1903)
In re Emrich
101 F. 231 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1900)
In re Fisher
98 F. 89 (D. Massachusetts, 1899)
Meier v. Wilkens
15 A.D. 97 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Platt v. . Jones
96 N.Y. 24 (New York Court of Appeals, 1884)
Eliot v. Merchants' Exchange
14 Mo. App. 234 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1883)
Barclay v. Smith
107 Ill. 349 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)
In re Ketchum
1 F. 840 (S.D. New York, 1880)