Sattler v. Slonimsky

199 F. 592, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1225
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 14, 1912
DocketNo. 1,850
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 199 F. 592 (Sattler v. Slonimsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sattler v. Slonimsky, 199 F. 592, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1225 (E.D. Pa. 1912).

Opinion

THOMPSON, District Judge.

This action in trespass is brought to recover damages arising from an alleged unlawful conspiracy entered into by the defendants prior to the adjudication in bankruptcy to fraudulently and collusively transfer and conceal moneys of Harry Ruderman and Jacob Ruderman, the bankrupts, for the purpose of hindering and delaying their creditors.

Prior to the amendment of June 25, 1910, to section 47a of the Bankruptcy Act, such a suit could not have been maintained upon a cause of action arising prior to the adjudication in bankruptcy, because the rights of action which vested in the trustee upon his appoint[593]*593ment were only such as were vested in the bankrupts prior to the adjudication. The amendment to section 47a provides, however, that the trustee “as to all property not in the custody of the bankruptcy court shall be deemed vested with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a judgment creditor holding an execution duly returned unsatisfied.”

That a creditor may bring an action of trespass on the case, based upon a conspiracy to fraudulently secrete and transfer the property of a defendant in an execution from the reach of the plaintiff, is well settled. Tams v. Lewis, Trustee, 42 Pa. 402; Collins v. Cronin, 117 Pa. 35, 11 Atl. 869. L think the present action is maintainable against all the parties to the alleged conspiracy»

The motion is therefore denied.

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

Related

Elliott v. Glushon
390 F.2d 514 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)
Lambert v. Reisman Co.
223 N.W. 541 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1929)
In re Pittsburg-Big Muddy Coal Co.
215 F. 703 (Seventh Circuit, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 F. 592, 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sattler-v-slonimsky-paed-1912.