In re Mott

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

In re Mott

17 F. Cas. 901, 1863 U.S. App. LEXIS 491

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedNovember 28, 1863

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F. Cas. 901 (In re Mott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Mott, 17 F. Cas. 901, 1863 U.S. App. LEXIS 491 (circtsdny 1863).

Pincite

Opinion

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

We have looked into the papers in this case, and are satisfied that the two orders entered by the district court, on the report of the general assignee, for a private sale of the assets of the bankrupts, on the 28th of February, 1860, were improvidently granted, and that they should be set aside, and, also, that the conveyance under them by the assignee to Isaac C. Dela-plaine should be delivered up and canceled, and the monies paid by him, and deposited in the district court, be refunded to him, and those received by the assignee, and not so deposited, be refunded by the said assignee. We do not doubt but that the district court has full power and jurisdiction to make an order to the above effect. As to the prayer of the petitioners that conveyances of the property made by the assignee to Delaplaine be made to them, we are of opinion that the district court has no power to make such an order, or that it would be right or proper to make it, even if it had the power. In the existing condition of. the matter in controversy, a proper and equitable disposition of them; in our judgment, would be an order directing a sale of these assets at public auction, giving ample notice of the time and place of sale, with a particular description of the nature, locality and boundaries of the property, it being real estate; or, at least, as full and particular a description as practicable. As to the question of the two years' [902]*902limitation in the bankrupt statute, it has heretofore been adjourned to this court by the district court, and by this court held not to apply. Let the above be certified by the clerk to the district court.

[NOTE. Subsequently the administrators of Isaac O. Delaplaine petitioned to have the amount paid by him refunded to them. Case No. 9,879. At the public sale of this interest it vras purchased by James M. Smith, Jr. A petition was filed to set aside this last sale. Petition dismissed. 6 Fed. 685.]

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

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

We have looked into the papers in this case, and are satisfied that the two orders entered by the district court, on the report of the general assignee, for a private sale of the assets of the bankrupts, on the 28th of February, 1860, were improvidently granted, and that they should be set aside, and, also, that the conveyance under them by the assignee to Isaac C. Dela-plaine should be delivered up and canceled, and the monies paid by him, and deposited in the district court, be refunded to him, and those received by the assignee, and not so deposited, be refunded by the said assignee. We do not doubt but that the district court has full power and jurisdiction to make an order to the above effect. As to the prayer of the petitioners that conveyances of the property made by the assignee to Delaplaine be made to them, we are of opinion that the district court has no power to make such an order, or that it would be right or proper to make it, even if it had the power. In the existing condition of. the matter in controversy, a proper and equitable disposition of them; in our judgment, would be an order directing a sale of these assets at public auction, giving ample notice of the time and place of sale, with a particular description of the nature, locality and boundaries of the property, it being real estate; or, at least, as full and particular a description as practicable. As to the question of the two years' [902]*902limitation in the bankrupt statute, it has heretofore been adjourned to this court by the district court, and by this court held not to apply. Let the above be certified by the clerk to the district court.

[NOTE. Subsequently the administrators of Isaac O. Delaplaine petitioned to have the amount paid by him refunded to them. Case No. 9,879. At the public sale of this interest it vras purchased by James M. Smith, Jr. A petition was filed to set aside this last sale. Petition dismissed. 6 Fed. 685.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F. Cas. 901, 1863 U.S. App. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mott-circtsdny-1863.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack