In re Mahoney

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Mahoney

5 F. 518, 1881 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17

DecidedJanuary 14, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. 518 (In re Mahoney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Mahoney, 5 F. 518, 1881 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17 (E.D. Pa. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, D. J.

In view of the great lapse of time since the termination of proceedings in this case, the court did not esteem it wise to appoint an assignee, as asked to do by the petition of Mr. McCrea, without some evidence of the existence of unadministered assets. The application was therefore referred" to the register to hear the petitioner and report. Considerable evidence bearing on the subject was presented, and several important questions of law and fact raised and considered,—the Girard Bank, in whose possession assets are alleged to exist, being allowed through its counsel to participate in the inquiry, and to defend against the allegation. The register upon a very careful and able examination of a legal question raised by the bank, which he decided in its favor —holding in consequence that no recovery could be had— reported adversely to the petitioners. Without determining whether the register’s decision respecting the question considered by Iqim, is right, or not, and without intimating any opinion on the subject, or any other disputed question of law or fact involved, I have concluded to appoint an assignee. Evidence of the existence of unadministered assets has been produced; and notwithstanding the important questions of law and fact to which my attention has been called, and which must be passed upon before the right of the assignee to recover can be determined, I believe the creditors should have an opportunity of proceeding in the case, and thus testing their rights. The questions raised in answer to the application cannot properly be considered at this time. Anxious as I have felt to avoid any action that might promote unnec-. essary litigation, I am satisfied after a very deliberate consideration of the case, that the prayer of the petitioner should be granted, and the creditors thus allowed to proceed to recover the alleged assets if they believe the circumstances warrant it.

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

Butler, D. J.

In view of the great lapse of time since the termination of proceedings in this case, the court did not esteem it wise to appoint an assignee, as asked to do by the petition of Mr. McCrea, without some evidence of the existence of unadministered assets. The application was therefore referred" to the register to hear the petitioner and report. Considerable evidence bearing on the subject was presented, and several important questions of law and fact raised and considered,—the Girard Bank, in whose possession assets are alleged to exist, being allowed through its counsel to participate in the inquiry, and to defend against the allegation. The register upon a very careful and able examination of a legal question raised by the bank, which he decided in its favor —holding in consequence that no recovery could be had— reported adversely to the petitioners. Without determining whether the register’s decision respecting the question considered by Iqim, is right, or not, and without intimating any opinion on the subject, or any other disputed question of law or fact involved, I have concluded to appoint an assignee. Evidence of the existence of unadministered assets has been produced; and notwithstanding the important questions of law and fact to which my attention has been called, and which must be passed upon before the right of the assignee to recover can be determined, I believe the creditors should have an opportunity of proceeding in the case, and thus testing their rights. The questions raised in answer to the application cannot properly be considered at this time. Anxious as I have felt to avoid any action that might promote unnec-. essary litigation, I am satisfied after a very deliberate consideration of the case, that the prayer of the petitioner should be granted, and the creditors thus allowed to proceed to recover the alleged assets if they believe the circumstances warrant it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. 518, 1881 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mahoney-paed-1881.