In re Kanter & Cohen

Second Circuit

In re Kanter & Cohen

121 F. 984, 58 C.C.A. 260, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4707

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 1903

DocketNo. 75

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 121 F. 984 (In re Kanter & Cohen) 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 Kanter & Cohen, 121 F. 984, 58 C.C.A. 260, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4707 (2d Cir. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in bankruptcy, denying the application of a receiver to restrain the prosecution of an action of trover brought against him in one of the state courts by one Steinburg. Kanter & Cohen, having filed their [985]*985petition to be adjudicated bankrupts, the court, pending the adjudication, by its order appointed Hough as temporary receiver of their estate. Shortly thereafter certain chattels which were supposed to be the property of the bankrupts were delivered into the possession of Hough by the police of New York City. Steinburg, claiming to be the owner of tire chattels, brought the action to recover their value the prosecution of which the receiver sought to restrain.

If the action had been in replevin, a different question would arise, but as it is we entertain no doubt that the court below properly refused the receiver’s application. The questions involved were considered, by this court in Re Russell & Birkett, 3 Am. Bankr. R. 658, 101 Fed. 251, and the decision in that case disposes of them. See, also, Act Aug. 13, 1888 (chapter 866, § 3, 25 Stat. 436 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583]), permitting suits against receivers to be brought without previous leave of the court.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in bankruptcy, denying the application of a receiver to restrain the prosecution of an action of trover brought against him in one of the state courts by one Steinburg. Kanter & Cohen, having filed their [985]*985petition to be adjudicated bankrupts, the court, pending the adjudication, by its order appointed Hough as temporary receiver of their estate. Shortly thereafter certain chattels which were supposed to be the property of the bankrupts were delivered into the possession of Hough by the police of New York City. Steinburg, claiming to be the owner of tire chattels, brought the action to recover their value the prosecution of which the receiver sought to restrain.

If the action had been in replevin, a different question would arise, but as it is we entertain no doubt that the court below properly refused the receiver’s application. The questions involved were considered, by this court in Re Russell & Birkett, 3 Am. Bankr. R. 658, 101 Fed. 251, and the decision in that case disposes of them. See, also, Act Aug. 13, 1888 (chapter 866, § 3, 25 Stat. 436 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583]), permitting suits against receivers to be brought without previous leave of the court.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 F. 984, 58 C.C.A. 260, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kanter-cohen-ca2-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack