In re Morgan

D. Massachusetts

In re Morgan

26 F.2d 90, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1160

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedMay 2, 1928

DocketNo. 40244

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 26 F.2d 90 (In re Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Morgan, 26 F.2d 90, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1160 (D. Mass. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

MORTON, District Judge.

This case was heard in open court on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, upon the ground that at the time when the petition was filed Morgan was dead. The date of the filing was March 1,1928; service was by leaving a subpoena at the last and usual place of abode.

I find the facts to be as follows: Morgan was a dealer in automobiles. His business [91]*91affairs were in a very serious condition; lie was deeply insolvent, and, on the evidence as it stands, it appears not impossible that criminal liability on his part was involved. He disappeared on the night of February 24-25, 1928, and was never seen again. His automobile was discovered, early in the morning of February 25th, standing vacant on the Cambridge bridge. About six weeks later his body was discovered in the Basin. On all the evidence, I entertain no doubt that he committed suicide during the night on which he disappeared; and I so find.

It follows that the bankruptcy petition must he dismissed, and the receivers directed to turn the property over to Morgan’s administrator. Inasmuch, however, as the lack of jurisdiction nowhere appeared on the face of the papers, and the order appointing receivers was regularly entered, and the receivers took possession of what had been Morgan’s property under it, their acts were not void ab initio, and they will settle their account here according to the usual practice, modified as the unusual circumstances may require. See Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen (Mass.) 1, at page 15, 90 Am. Dec. 122.

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

MORTON, District Judge.

This case was heard in open court on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, upon the ground that at the time when the petition was filed Morgan was dead. The date of the filing was March 1,1928; service was by leaving a subpoena at the last and usual place of abode.

I find the facts to be as follows: Morgan was a dealer in automobiles. His business [91]*91affairs were in a very serious condition; lie was deeply insolvent, and, on the evidence as it stands, it appears not impossible that criminal liability on his part was involved. He disappeared on the night of February 24-25, 1928, and was never seen again. His automobile was discovered, early in the morning of February 25th, standing vacant on the Cambridge bridge. About six weeks later his body was discovered in the Basin. On all the evidence, I entertain no doubt that he committed suicide during the night on which he disappeared; and I so find.

It follows that the bankruptcy petition must he dismissed, and the receivers directed to turn the property over to Morgan’s administrator. Inasmuch, however, as the lack of jurisdiction nowhere appeared on the face of the papers, and the order appointing receivers was regularly entered, and the receivers took possession of what had been Morgan’s property under it, their acts were not void ab initio, and they will settle their account here according to the usual practice, modified as the unusual circumstances may require. See Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen (Mass.) 1, at page 15, 90 Am. Dec. 122.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F.2d 90, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-morgan-mad-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack