In re Regency, Inc.

D. New Jersey

In re Regency, Inc.

96 F. Supp. 535, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2485

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey

DecidedMarch 28, 1951

DocketBankr. No. 7069A

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 96 F. Supp. 535 (In re Regency, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Regency, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 535, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2485 (D.N.J. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

FAKE, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the evidence adduced before the referee in the above-entitled matter, the briefs submitted by counsel, and the reasoning set forth in the referee’s report, I am firmly convinced that the referee was justified in entering the order dated May 9, 1950, which provides as follows : “ * * * it is ordered that the said claim of Jean G. L. Cassel van Doom and the said claim of Marij V. Cassel van Doom be and the same are hereby subordinated to the payment in full of all other creditors whose claims are or may be allowed in the above estate, and that said claims, as so subordinated, are hereby allowed.”

I do not deem it necessary to enter an extended opinion here because the cases of Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 60 S.Ct. 238, 84 L.Ed. 281, and Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 66 S.Ct. 853, 90 L.Ed. 970, when coupled with the memorandum of the referee are sufficient. Anything more would tend to unnecessarily encumber the record.

An order will be entered affirming the referee.

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

FAKE, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the evidence adduced before the referee in the above-entitled matter, the briefs submitted by counsel, and the reasoning set forth in the referee’s report, I am firmly convinced that the referee was justified in entering the order dated May 9, 1950, which provides as follows : “ * * * it is ordered that the said claim of Jean G. L. Cassel van Doom and the said claim of Marij V. Cassel van Doom be and the same are hereby subordinated to the payment in full of all other creditors whose claims are or may be allowed in the above estate, and that said claims, as so subordinated, are hereby allowed.”

I do not deem it necessary to enter an extended opinion here because the cases of Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 60 S.Ct. 238, 84 L.Ed. 281, and Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 66 S.Ct. 853, 90 L.Ed. 970, when coupled with the memorandum of the referee are sufficient. Anything more would tend to unnecessarily encumber the record.

An order will be entered affirming the referee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. Supp. 535, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-regency-inc-njd-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack