In re Sheinbaum
107 F. 247, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 328
Opinion
The evidence shows that Wasserman was in possession, claiming title under a hill of sale executed before the bankruptcy, and hence, under Bardes v. Bank, 178 U. S. 524, 20 Sup. Ct. 1000, 44 L. Ed. 1175, I cannot try his title; by summary proceedings, except he consent to proceedings in this court. There is no such consent. The reference was merely to ascertain the facts su£ficieiitly to show whether he was in actual possession under a claim in his own right. As now that is not questioned, his title cannot be tried in this court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In re Sheinbaum, 107 F. 247, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 328 (S.D.N.Y. 1901).
107 F. 247 (In re Sheinbaum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Horner-Gaylord Co. v. Miller & Bennett
147 F. 295 (N.D. West Virginia, 1906)
In re Green
108 F. 616 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1901)