Lowenstein v. Thomas

Fifth Circuit

Lowenstein v. Thomas

128 F. 1018, 62 C.C.A. 679, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 1904

DocketNo. 1,125

StatusPublished

This text of 128 F. 1018 (Lowenstein v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lowenstein v. Thomas, 128 F. 1018, 62 C.C.A. 679, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993 (5th Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the former decree entered in this case, on December 14th of thé present term, we erroneously affirmed, when we should have reversed. Now, therefore, said decree is recalled and vacated, and it is ordered that the following be entered in lieu thereof, to wit: The decision in this case has been withheld to await action of the Supreme Court on appeal in Kahn v. Cone Export & Commission Company, decided by this court March 15, 1902, and reported in 115 Fed. 290, 53 C. C. A. 92, wherein the same question of preference was involved; and, said appeal having been diumissed by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court on the points involved in Jaquith v. Alden, 189 U. S. 78, 23 Sup. Ct. 649, 47 L. Ed. 717, we now reverse the decree of the District Court, with costs, and remand the cause, with instructions to allow the claims of Boyd, Lunham & Co. and of the Carlton Dry Goods Company against the estate of Wright & Berryhill, bankrupts, as presented, and to allow the claim of B. Lowenstein & Bros. against the estate of Wright & Berryhill, as presented, upon the surrender by said Lowenstein & Bros. of the sum of $135.04, the last-mentioned sum being the amount of actual preference received by said B. Lowenstein & Bros. from Wright & Berryhill, bankrupts, within four months prior to the adjudication in bankruptcy, and to otherwise proceed in said cause according to the opinion of this court in Kahn v. Cone Export & Commission Co. and the opinion of the Supreme Court in Jaquith v. Alden.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the former decree entered in this case, on December 14th of thé present term, we erroneously affirmed, when we should have reversed. Now, therefore, said decree is recalled and vacated, and it is ordered that the following be entered in lieu thereof, to wit: The decision in this case has been withheld to await action of the Supreme Court on appeal in Kahn v. Cone Export & Commission Company, decided by this court March 15, 1902, and reported in 115 Fed. 290, 53 C. C. A. 92, wherein the same question of preference was involved; and, said appeal having been diumissed by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court on the points involved in Jaquith v. Alden, 189 U. S. 78, 23 Sup. Ct. 649, 47 L. Ed. 717, we now reverse the decree of the District Court, with costs, and remand the cause, with instructions to allow the claims of Boyd, Lunham & Co. and of the Carlton Dry Goods Company against the estate of Wright & Berryhill, bankrupts, as presented, and to allow the claim of B. Lowenstein & Bros. against the estate of Wright & Berryhill, as presented, upon the surrender by said Lowenstein & Bros. of the sum of $135.04, the last-mentioned sum being the amount of actual preference received by said B. Lowenstein & Bros. from Wright & Berryhill, bankrupts, within four months prior to the adjudication in bankruptcy, and to otherwise proceed in said cause according to the opinion of this court in Kahn v. Cone Export & Commission Co. and the opinion of the Supreme Court in Jaquith v. Alden.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F. 1018, 62 C.C.A. 679, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowenstein-v-thomas-ca5-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack