In re Benedict
Citations
- 140 F. 55
- 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75
Syllabus
<p>1. Bankruptcy — Receivers—Power to Act Outside oe District.</p> <p>Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2, 30 Stat. 345 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421], which defines courts of bankruptcy and their jurisdiction “within their respective territorial limits,” contains nothing which authorizes such a court to confer upon a receiver appointed thereunder, who is not vested with title to the bankrupt’s property, the power to exercise his official functions in respect to such property in any other district, and under the general rule governing courts of equity and their receivers appointed in creditors’ suits such receiver has no authority to act officially outside of the district of his appointment.</p> <p>2. Same — Powers of Court of Bankruptcy — Appointment of Ancillary Receiver.</p> <p>In view of the full equity powers conferred on courts of bankruptcy by Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418], so far as may be necessary to enforce the act, such courts may employ the procedure, writs, and remedies known to equity jurisprudence; and where, in involuntary proceedings, a receiver has been appointed, a District Court of another district in which property of the alleged bankrupt is situated has power to appoint an ancillary receiver to aid the court of original jurisdiction in preserving such property pending the selection of a trustee, the necessity of such appointment being shown.</p>
Judges: Quarles
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Booth v. ClarkSupreme Court· 1855-03-18· cited 250×
- Hale v. AllinsonSupreme Court· 1903-01-19· cited 215×
- Bank v. ShermanSupreme Court· 1880-02-18· cited 122×
- Semmes v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1875-10-25· cited 30×
- Aldridge v. MuirheadSupreme Court· 1880-04-19· cited 18×
- In re WilliamsW.D. Tennessee· 1903-05-20· cited 18×
- Burbank v. BigelowSupreme Court· 1876-03-20· cited 14×
- In re HicksD. Vermont· 1901-02-18· cited 9×
- In re SchromN.D. Iowa· 1899-11-23· cited 9×
- In re PeiserE.D. Pennsylvania· 1902-04-15· cited 7×
- Sherman v. BinghamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts· 1872-10-15· cited 6×
- In re WilliamsE.D. Arkansas· 1903-02-14· cited 6×
- Ross-Meeham Foundry Co. v. Southern Car & Foundry Co.W.D. Tennessee· 1903-07-21· cited 5×
- Markson v. HeaneyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota· 1871-02-06· cited 3×
- In re SpaldingS.D. New York· 1905-01-13· cited 3×
- In re TifftS.D. New York· 1879-05-02· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.