In re Pick Barth Holding Corp.

S.D. New York

In re Pick Barth Holding Corp.

3 F. Supp. 485, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1639

DecidedApril 10, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 3 F. Supp. 485 (In re Pick Barth Holding Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. 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 Pick Barth Holding Corp., 3 F. Supp. 485, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1639 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BONDY, District Judge.

This court did not act without jurisdiction in the present proceedings, having acquired actual possession of property of the bankrupt through its receiver, before exclusive possession of such property had been vested in the Delaware court by the election of a trustee. The mere adjudication there did not deprive this court of jurisdiction. See In re Tybo Mining & Reduction Co. (D. C.) 132 F. 697; In re United Button Co. (D. C.) 132 F. 378; In re New Era Novelty Co. (D. C.) 241 F. 298.

The corporation having first been adjudicated a bankrupt in the District Court for the District of Delaware, where it is domiciled, and a trustee having been elected in that district, the proper practice would be for the parties to the proceeding in this district to apply to the District Court of Delaware for an order transferring the case to this disirict for the greater convenience of the par-, lies in interest (see General Order No. 6 [11 USCA § 53], and Bankr. Act § 32 [11 US CA § 55]), and if denied, for the trustee to apply to this court for an order to transfer the proceedings to Delaware. The receiver has not been made a party to this motion. An order directing the receiver to turn over the property therefore should not be granted on this motion.

Pending a determination, all further proceedings herein should be stayed.

The motion accordingly is denied, without prejudice to the • renewal of any part thereof after such proceedings have been taken.

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

BONDY, District Judge.

This court did not act without jurisdiction in the present proceedings, having acquired actual possession of property of the bankrupt through its receiver, before exclusive possession of such property had been vested in the Delaware court by the election of a trustee. The mere adjudication there did not deprive this court of jurisdiction. See In re Tybo Mining & Reduction Co. (D. C.) 132 F. 697; In re United Button Co. (D. C.) 132 F. 378; In re New Era Novelty Co. (D. C.) 241 F. 298.

The corporation having first been adjudicated a bankrupt in the District Court for the District of Delaware, where it is domiciled, and a trustee having been elected in that district, the proper practice would be for the parties to the proceeding in this district to apply to the District Court of Delaware for an order transferring the case to this disirict for the greater convenience of the par-, lies in interest (see General Order No. 6 [11 USCA § 53], and Bankr. Act § 32 [11 US CA § 55]), and if denied, for the trustee to apply to this court for an order to transfer the proceedings to Delaware. The receiver has not been made a party to this motion. An order directing the receiver to turn over the property therefore should not be granted on this motion.

Pending a determination, all further proceedings herein should be stayed.

The motion accordingly is denied, without prejudice to the • renewal of any part thereof after such proceedings have been taken.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F. Supp. 485, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pick-barth-holding-corp-nysd-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack