In re Irving Electrical Supply Co.

S.D. New York

In re Irving Electrical Supply Co.

41 F. Supp. 16, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2596

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 16, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 41 F. Supp. 16 (In re Irving Electrical Supply Co.) 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 Irving Electrical Supply Co., 41 F. Supp. 16, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2596 (S.D.N.Y. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

CONGER, District Judge.

Under the order of confirmation which incorporated by reference the proposed amended plan of arrangement, the Court retained jurisdiction not only of the debtor but also of the debtor’s assets. Thus it is apparent that title to its assets did not revest in the debtor upon confirmation but said debtor continued to function as a debtor-in-possession, subject to control by the court. Although no express order of the Court was obtained permitting the debtor-in-possession to continue the business, this permission is clearly implied from a reading of the proposed amended plan of arrangement which was made a part of order of June 15, 1939, confirming the arrangement.

The purchase which is the subject of the claim herein appears to have been made in the ordinary conduct of this business and was not in any sense an unusual transaction. As such, no special order was required and the implied general authorization of the debtor-in-possession to continue doing business justified this transaction. Cf. In re Avorn Dress Co., 2 Cir., 78 F.2d 681; In re Lambertville Rubber Co., 3 Cir., 111 F.2d 45. Therefore the Referee properly allowed respondent’s claim for priority inasmuch as the claim herein is an expense of administration within Section 64, sub. a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104, sub. a.

Settle order on notice.

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

CONGER, District Judge.

Under the order of confirmation which incorporated by reference the proposed amended plan of arrangement, the Court retained jurisdiction not only of the debtor but also of the debtor’s assets. Thus it is apparent that title to its assets did not revest in the debtor upon confirmation but said debtor continued to function as a debtor-in-possession, subject to control by the court. Although no express order of the Court was obtained permitting the debtor-in-possession to continue the business, this permission is clearly implied from a reading of the proposed amended plan of arrangement which was made a part of order of June 15, 1939, confirming the arrangement.

The purchase which is the subject of the claim herein appears to have been made in the ordinary conduct of this business and was not in any sense an unusual transaction. As such, no special order was required and the implied general authorization of the debtor-in-possession to continue doing business justified this transaction. Cf. In re Avorn Dress Co., 2 Cir., 78 F.2d 681; In re Lambertville Rubber Co., 3 Cir., 111 F.2d 45. Therefore the Referee properly allowed respondent’s claim for priority inasmuch as the claim herein is an expense of administration within Section 64, sub. a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104, sub. a.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F. Supp. 16, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-irving-electrical-supply-co-nysd-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack