Philips v. Turner

Fifth Circuit

Philips v. Turner

114 F. 726, 52 C.C.A. 358, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4134

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 22, 1902·No. No. 1,121·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

114 F. 726 (Philips v. Turner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related