Oma C. Brown v. S. David Rubenstein, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Estate of the Thirteen Hundred Corporation, Bankrupt

D.C. Circuit

Oma C. Brown v. S. David Rubenstein, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Estate of the Thirteen Hundred Corporation, Bankrupt

288 F.2d 168, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 384, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5089

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1961

Docket16087_1

StatusPublished

This text of 288 F.2d 168 (Oma C. Brown v. S. David Rubenstein, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Estate of the Thirteen Hundred Corporation, Bankrupt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oma C. Brown v. S. David Rubenstein, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Estate of the Thirteen Hundred Corporation, Bankrupt, 288 F.2d 168, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 384, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5089 (D.C. Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

*169 PER CURIAM.

The appellants filed proofs of claim against the estate of a bankrupt corporation on the basis of a debenture issued by it. The Trustee excepted and filed counterclaims against them. Thereupon the appellants moved to dismiss the counterclaims, on the ground that the Trustee had failed to join parties alleged to be indispensable, and that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

After the Referee overruled their motion to dismiss the Trustee’s counterclaims, the present appellants petitioned for review in the District Court. That court affirmed the Referee’s ruling, and this appeal followed.

The Trustee says the Referee’s order is interlocutory and therefore moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We resolve the close question thus presented by retaining the appeal. On the merits, we hold the District Court was correct in affirming the Referee’s order.

Affirmed.

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

*169 PER CURIAM.

The appellants filed proofs of claim against the estate of a bankrupt corporation on the basis of a debenture issued by it. The Trustee excepted and filed counterclaims against them. Thereupon the appellants moved to dismiss the counterclaims, on the ground that the Trustee had failed to join parties alleged to be indispensable, and that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

After the Referee overruled their motion to dismiss the Trustee’s counterclaims, the present appellants petitioned for review in the District Court. That court affirmed the Referee’s ruling, and this appeal followed.

The Trustee says the Referee’s order is interlocutory and therefore moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We resolve the close question thus presented by retaining the appeal. On the merits, we hold the District Court was correct in affirming the Referee’s order.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 F.2d 168, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 384, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oma-c-brown-v-s-david-rubenstein-trustee-in-bankruptcy-estate-of-the-cadc-1961.