Shaw v. Thompson

Fifth Circuit

Shaw v. Thompson

184 F.2d 572, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3626

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1950

Docket12943

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 184 F.2d 572 (Shaw v. Thompson) 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

Shaw v. Thompson, 184 F.2d 572, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3626 (5th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

•After a full hearing as to whether a purported transfer of an automobile by the bankrupt to one Kelly Shaw was genuine or merely colorable, the referee found that it was colorable and that Shaw, in order to avoid turning the car over to the trustee, had sold it for $2400. He, therefore, issued a turn over order requiring Shaw to at once surrender the car to the trustee or pay the trustee the $2400 'he had received from its sale.

On Shaw’s petition for review, the district judge approved the findings that the transfer was colorable. He further found, however, that 'Shaw had made repairs on the car of the value of $600, for which he should be allowed a credit. He, therefore, issued a turn over order requiring him to pay to the trustee $1800 instead of the $2400 ordered by the referee.

Shaw is here contesting both the summary jurisdiction of the court and its findings and order.

*573 An examination of the record leaves us in no doubt that these contentions are without merit. The correctness of the Court’s assertion of jurisdiction, as well as of the turn over order, depends upon the correctness of the fact findings on which the order was based. The record abundantly supports these findings. The case smacks so much of, the 'circumstances present so many badges and indicia of, fraud that despite the direct testimony to the contrary, the court was authorized to, and did, reject it as untrue. Indeed the finding of fraud seems almost to have been demanded. The exercise of summary jurisdiction was proper. The order entered was right. It is

Affirmed.

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

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

•After a full hearing as to whether a purported transfer of an automobile by the bankrupt to one Kelly Shaw was genuine or merely colorable, the referee found that it was colorable and that Shaw, in order to avoid turning the car over to the trustee, had sold it for $2400. He, therefore, issued a turn over order requiring Shaw to at once surrender the car to the trustee or pay the trustee the $2400 'he had received from its sale.

On Shaw’s petition for review, the district judge approved the findings that the transfer was colorable. He further found, however, that 'Shaw had made repairs on the car of the value of $600, for which he should be allowed a credit. He, therefore, issued a turn over order requiring him to pay to the trustee $1800 instead of the $2400 ordered by the referee.

Shaw is here contesting both the summary jurisdiction of the court and its findings and order.

*573 An examination of the record leaves us in no doubt that these contentions are without merit. The correctness of the Court’s assertion of jurisdiction, as well as of the turn over order, depends upon the correctness of the fact findings on which the order was based. The record abundantly supports these findings. The case smacks so much of, the 'circumstances present so many badges and indicia of, fraud that despite the direct testimony to the contrary, the court was authorized to, and did, reject it as untrue. Indeed the finding of fraud seems almost to have been demanded. The exercise of summary jurisdiction was proper. The order entered was right. It is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 F.2d 572, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-thompson-ca5-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack