In re Rosing

N.D. Ohio

In re Rosing

56 F.2d 1049, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2018

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedJuly 31, 1931

DocketNo. 21716

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 F.2d 1049 (In re Rosing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Rosing, 56 F.2d 1049, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2018 (N.D. Ohio 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, District Judge.

Under the law, a court of bankruptcy has exclusive jurisdiction to administer all of the bankrupt property and to determine all rights and claims of others therein. Isaacs, Trustee, v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co., 282 U. S. 734, 51 S. Ct. 270, 75 L. Ed. 645.

Rights in property administered by the bankruptcy court, arising under state statutes, are recognized only by specific provision of the act or by necessary implication. Since, as above noted, the bankruptcy jurisdiction supersedes all others respecting property and determination of rights therein, any claim that the petitioner’s asserted right is beyond determination by that court is without merit. Nor may the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to determine the petitioner’s rights be impaired or defeated by failure to respond to the referee’s order to show cause. In re E. A. Kinsey Co., 184 F. 694, 697 (C. C. A. 6th).

Order of referee confirmed; petition for review dismissed.

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

JONES, District Judge.

Under the law, a court of bankruptcy has exclusive jurisdiction to administer all of the bankrupt property and to determine all rights and claims of others therein. Isaacs, Trustee, v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co., 282 U. S. 734, 51 S. Ct. 270, 75 L. Ed. 645.

Rights in property administered by the bankruptcy court, arising under state statutes, are recognized only by specific provision of the act or by necessary implication. Since, as above noted, the bankruptcy jurisdiction supersedes all others respecting property and determination of rights therein, any claim that the petitioner’s asserted right is beyond determination by that court is without merit. Nor may the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to determine the petitioner’s rights be impaired or defeated by failure to respond to the referee’s order to show cause. In re E. A. Kinsey Co., 184 F. 694, 697 (C. C. A. 6th).

Order of referee confirmed; petition for review dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 1049, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosing-ohnd-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack