In re Ironclad Mfg. Co.

191 F. 831, 112 C.C.A. 345
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 27, 1911·No. No. 101·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There is no necessity to go into the details of the case presented, since the matter was disposed of below on a question of jurisdiction. We think that petitioners were entitled to have the bankruptcy, court make a preliminary investigation summarily to determine whether or not the claim of adverse ownership is merely colorable. Under the authorities a bona fide claim of ownership by a third party raises a question which can be disposed of only by plenary suit; but a mere assertion of ownership, which is wholly unfounded, cannot conclude the court as to the disposition of the claim.

As we understand the situation here, the District Judge had some doubt as to his jurisdiction to decide this question of the bona fides of the claim summarily, and therefore did not pass upon it. We are satisfied that the decision of such a question was within his jurisdiction, and therefore reverse the order, and remand the case to the District Court for further action.

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

In re Ironclad Mfg. Co., 191 F. 831, 112 C.C.A. 345 (2d Cir. 1911).

191 F. 831 (In re Ironclad Mfg. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Standard Planing Mill v. Pacific Coast Paper Co.
59 F.2d 29 (Ninth Circuit, 1932)
In re Michnoff
295 F. 426 (E.D. New York, 1923)
In re Mitchell
278 F. 707 (Second Circuit, 1922)
In re Ironclad Mfg. Co.
201 F. 66 (Second Circuit, 1912)
In re Bacon
196 F. 986 (W.D. New York, 1912)
In re Iron Clad Mfg. Co.
194 F. 906 (E.D. New York, 1912)