Philips v. Turner

114 F. 726, 52 C.C.A. 358, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4134
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 22, 1902
DocketNo. 1,121
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 114 F. 726 (Philips v. Turner) 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
Philips v. Turner, 114 F. 726, 52 C.C.A. 358, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4134 (5th Cir. 1902).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only material question raised is as to the jurisdiction of the district court to make the orders and decrees relating- to the property transferred by the bankrupt, Wolf, to Philips. The petitioner, Philips, having voluntarily entered into the litigation in that court, cannot now be heard to deny its jurisdiction. By the terms of the bankruptcy act (section 23b) Philips consenting, the district court had jurisdiction of the questions litigated with him. The record, we think, shows that Philips consented to the litigation in the district court.

On the authority of Bardes v. Bank, 178 U. S. 524, 20 Sup. Ct. 1000, 44 L. Ed. 1175, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Related

Lowenstein v. Reikes
54 F.2d 481 (Second Circuit, 1931)
In re Patterson-MacDonald Shipbuilding Co.
284 F. 281 (W.D. Washington, 1922)
McEldowney v. Card
193 F. 475 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee, 1911)
In re Antigo Screen Door Co.
123 F. 249 (Seventh Circuit, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 F. 726, 52 C.C.A. 358, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philips-v-turner-ca5-1902.