Sprague v. L. D. Margolis Co.

D. Massachusetts

Sprague v. L. D. Margolis Co.

211 F. 171, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 994

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedAugust 6, 1913

DocketNo. 456

StatusPublished

This text of 211 F. 171 (Sprague v. L. D. Margolis Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sprague v. L. D. Margolis Co., 211 F. 171, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 994 (D. Mass. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

MORTON, District Judge.

The respondent corporation carries on a business which was to some extent, at least, independent of the Eastern Tea & Coffee Company, having goods honestly belonging to it and creditors to whom it is indebted. There is no allegation that it is insolvent. Margolis has been and is the controlling factor in it. There is no doubt that it was used by him to conceal property from his creditors. The principal reason urged for the appointment of a receiver is to assist the trustee in bankruptcy of Margolis in tracing property fraudulently concealed from his creditors by Margolis through the [172]*172agency of the respondent corporation. The interest of Margolis as a stockholder in the respondent corporation has, of course, passed to his trustee in bankruptcy. It does not seem to me that a receiver ought to be appointed simply for the purpose of getting evidence; nor, upon the allegations in the bill, do I think that" a receiver ought to be appointed for the purpose of winding the corporation up at the present stage of the litigation.

The application for the appointment of a receiver at this time is therefore denied.

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

MORTON, District Judge.

The respondent corporation carries on a business which was to some extent, at least, independent of the Eastern Tea & Coffee Company, having goods honestly belonging to it and creditors to whom it is indebted. There is no allegation that it is insolvent. Margolis has been and is the controlling factor in it. There is no doubt that it was used by him to conceal property from his creditors. The principal reason urged for the appointment of a receiver is to assist the trustee in bankruptcy of Margolis in tracing property fraudulently concealed from his creditors by Margolis through the [172]*172agency of the respondent corporation. The interest of Margolis as a stockholder in the respondent corporation has, of course, passed to his trustee in bankruptcy. It does not seem to me that a receiver ought to be appointed simply for the purpose of getting evidence; nor, upon the allegations in the bill, do I think that" a receiver ought to be appointed for the purpose of winding the corporation up at the present stage of the litigation.

The application for the appointment of a receiver at this time is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 F. 171, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprague-v-l-d-margolis-co-mad-1913.