In re Mirsky

Second Circuit

In re Mirsky

124 F.2d 1017, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 1942

DocketNo. 128

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 124 F.2d 1017 (In re Mirsky) 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 Mirsky, 124 F.2d 1017, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588 (2d Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the district court reported at 39 F.Supp. 773.

This is not a situation where a debtor has changed his position to his detriment. Particularly where, as here, the assets of the estate seemed so small that appointment of a trustee to hold title to the contingent interest would have involved what justifiably appeared to be needless expense, mere nonaction by the creditors is not sufficient to constitute an abandonment. The doctrine of Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Logan, 5 Cir., 92 F.2d 28 and Tuffy v. Nichols, 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 906 is applicable. A bankrupt who wants to avoid that doctrine should, while the proceedings are pending, seek a specific order of abandonment; if the bankruptcy court grants such an order, and not otherwise, the asset should be regarded as abandoned by the creditors.

The order of the district court is reversed.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the district court reported at 39 F.Supp. 773.

This is not a situation where a debtor has changed his position to his detriment. Particularly where, as here, the assets of the estate seemed so small that appointment of a trustee to hold title to the contingent interest would have involved what justifiably appeared to be needless expense, mere nonaction by the creditors is not sufficient to constitute an abandonment. The doctrine of Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Logan, 5 Cir., 92 F.2d 28 and Tuffy v. Nichols, 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 906 is applicable. A bankrupt who wants to avoid that doctrine should, while the proceedings are pending, seek a specific order of abandonment; if the bankruptcy court grants such an order, and not otherwise, the asset should be regarded as abandoned by the creditors.

The order of the district court is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F.2d 1017, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mirsky-ca2-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack