In re J. M. Mertens & Co.

Second Circuit

In re J. M. Mertens & Co.

147 F. 182, 77 C.C.A. 478, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4209

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1906

DocketNo. 12

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 147 F. 182 (In re J. M. Mertens & Co.) 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 J. M. Mertens & Co., 147 F. 182, 77 C.C.A. 478, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4209 (2d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order under review enjoins the American Woolen Company from prosecuting an action in the Supreme Court of the state of New York which it had brought against the trustee in bankruptcy to recover the value of certain personal property alleged to belong to the woolen company, and which the trustee took into his possession as the property of the bankrupts and sold as a part of the bankrupts’ estate. The order restrains the plaintiff in an action of trover from recovering the value of property which, if its contention is correct, never became part of the bankrupts’ estate, and was converted by the trustee. In effect the order overrules several decisions of this court. In re Russell & Burkett, 101 Fed. 248, 41 C. C. A. 323; In re Kanter & Cohen, 121 Fed. 984, 58 C. C. A. 260; In re Spitzer, 130 Fed. 879, 66 C. C. A. 35; In re Grissler, 136 Fed. 754, 69 C. C. A. 406. We find nothing in Whitney v. Wenman, 198 U. S. 539, 25 Sup. Ct. 778, 49 L. Ed. 1157, which conflicts with the views expressed in these decisions.

The order is reversed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order under review enjoins the American Woolen Company from prosecuting an action in the Supreme Court of the state of New York which it had brought against the trustee in bankruptcy to recover the value of certain personal property alleged to belong to the woolen company, and which the trustee took into his possession as the property of the bankrupts and sold as a part of the bankrupts’ estate. The order restrains the plaintiff in an action of trover from recovering the value of property which, if its contention is correct, never became part of the bankrupts’ estate, and was converted by the trustee. In effect the order overrules several decisions of this court. In re Russell & Burkett, 101 Fed. 248, 41 C. C. A. 323; In re Kanter & Cohen, 121 Fed. 984, 58 C. C. A. 260; In re Spitzer, 130 Fed. 879, 66 C. C. A. 35; In re Grissler, 136 Fed. 754, 69 C. C. A. 406. We find nothing in Whitney v. Wenman, 198 U. S. 539, 25 Sup. Ct. 778, 49 L. Ed. 1157, which conflicts with the views expressed in these decisions.

The order is reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 F. 182, 77 C.C.A. 478, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-j-m-mertens-co-ca2-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack