In re Greenberg

Second Circuit

In re Greenberg

175 F. 1020, 99 C.C.A. 665, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4971

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 1909

DocketNo. 213

StatusPublished

This text of 175 F. 1020 (In re Greenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Greenberg, 175 F. 1020, 99 C.C.A. 665, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4971 (2d Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It seems to be conceded that on the record .before us there is no contradiction of the averment in the petitioner’s affidavit that the merchandise in question was, at the time of the hearing in the bankruptcy court, in the custody of the United States marshal in the district of North Carolina, pursuant to writ of seizure issued to an ancillary receiver herein. If the receiver'has the merchandise, it is difficult to understand upon what theory he can also demand the money that was paid for it. But, however this may be, we are clearly of the opinion that controversies such as this between the receiver and third parties should not be decided summarily on affidavits, but in a plenary suit. Order reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It seems to be conceded that on the record .before us there is no contradiction of the averment in the petitioner’s affidavit that the merchandise in question was, at the time of the hearing in the bankruptcy court, in the custody of the United States marshal in the district of North Carolina, pursuant to writ of seizure issued to an ancillary receiver herein. If the receiver'has the merchandise, it is difficult to understand upon what theory he can also demand the money that was paid for it. But, however this may be, we are clearly of the opinion that controversies such as this between the receiver and third parties should not be decided summarily on affidavits, but in a plenary suit. Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. 1020, 99 C.C.A. 665, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-greenberg-ca2-1909.