In re Thompson

S.D. New York

In re Thompson

122 F. 174, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 275

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1903

DocketNo. 3,240

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 F. 174 (In re Thompson) 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 Thompson, 122 F. 174, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

I think that the referee had jurisdiction to make the order (Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188, 21 Sup. Ct. 557, 45 L. Ed. 814); that the petition and order to examine Murray was substantially a re-opening of the proceedings on the accounting; that, the motion at the close of Murray’s examination gave him due notice of the claims against him which were passed on by the referee, and that he had a fair opportunity to give evidence and be heard on the claim? made against him; that Murray went into possession of the bankrupt.’?; [180]*180property and held it as assignee for the benefit of creditors, and not as mortgagee in possession; that Hincks & Johnston took the carriages covered by their mortgage in payment of their claim; that they could not transfer to any other creditor a lien on the rest of the property mortgaged; that therefore Murray held all the rest of the property, not covered by his first two mortgages, as assignee, and was properly charged with its value by the referee; that he was also liable as assignee for the value of all the property purchased by the bankrupt after executing the Hinckg & Johnston mortgage, except the eight horses mortgaged to 0 Donnell; that the mortgage to O’Donnell, although not filed, was valid as to the parties and Murray as assignee; and that therefore Murray was justified in delivering said eight horses to O’Donnell.

My conclusion is that the referee’s order should be modified by deducting $1,200, the value of the eight horses delivered to O’Donnell, from the sum of $6,036.85, the amount directed to be paid by the assignee to the trustee, and that the order in other respects should be affirmed.

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

HOLT, District Judge.

I think that the referee had jurisdiction to make the order (Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188, 21 Sup. Ct. 557, 45 L. Ed. 814); that the petition and order to examine Murray was substantially a re-opening of the proceedings on the accounting; that, the motion at the close of Murray’s examination gave him due notice of the claims against him which were passed on by the referee, and that he had a fair opportunity to give evidence and be heard on the claim? made against him; that Murray went into possession of the bankrupt.’?; [180]*180property and held it as assignee for the benefit of creditors, and not as mortgagee in possession; that Hincks & Johnston took the carriages covered by their mortgage in payment of their claim; that they could not transfer to any other creditor a lien on the rest of the property mortgaged; that therefore Murray held all the rest of the property, not covered by his first two mortgages, as assignee, and was properly charged with its value by the referee; that he was also liable as assignee for the value of all the property purchased by the bankrupt after executing the Hinckg & Johnston mortgage, except the eight horses mortgaged to 0 Donnell; that the mortgage to O’Donnell, although not filed, was valid as to the parties and Murray as assignee; and that therefore Murray was justified in delivering said eight horses to O’Donnell.

My conclusion is that the referee’s order should be modified by deducting $1,200, the value of the eight horses delivered to O’Donnell, from the sum of $6,036.85, the amount directed to be paid by the assignee to the trustee, and that the order in other respects should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 F. 174, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thompson-nysd-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack