In re Smyth

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Smyth

167 F. 871, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 395

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 19, 1909

DocketNo. 2,884

StatusPublished

This text of 167 F. 871 (In re Smyth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Smyth, 167 F. 871, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 395 (E.D. Pa. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I fully agree with the finding of the learned referee that the $300 which has been specifically followed into the hands of James S. Alcorn was not the property of [875]*875tlie bankrupt, and therefore that the trustee has no title thereto. But the order appended to the-report cannot be sustained; it distributes •the money in Mr. Alcorn’s hands, and is radically inconsistent with the conclusion that the fund did not belong to the bankrupt. If this is true, the District Court has no further jurisdiction in the premises, and has therefore no power to make distribution. The referee’s suggestions, however (for they can only be considered as suggestions), seem to do substantial justice, and, if the parlies choose to carry them out, I may say that no objection appears to such voluntary action. But the only enforceable decision that the court has jurisdiction to make is that the trustee has no right to the money.

The order entered by the referee is, therefore, so modified as to read that the trustee’s petition is refused.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

I fully agree with the finding of the learned referee that the $300 which has been specifically followed into the hands of James S. Alcorn was not the property of [875]*875tlie bankrupt, and therefore that the trustee has no title thereto. But the order appended to the-report cannot be sustained; it distributes •the money in Mr. Alcorn’s hands, and is radically inconsistent with the conclusion that the fund did not belong to the bankrupt. If this is true, the District Court has no further jurisdiction in the premises, and has therefore no power to make distribution. The referee’s suggestions, however (for they can only be considered as suggestions), seem to do substantial justice, and, if the parlies choose to carry them out, I may say that no objection appears to such voluntary action. But the only enforceable decision that the court has jurisdiction to make is that the trustee has no right to the money.

The order entered by the referee is, therefore, so modified as to read that the trustee’s petition is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F. 871, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smyth-paed-1909.