In re Davis
Citations
- 119 F. 950
- 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 396
Syllabus
<p>1. Bankruptcy—Jurisdiction to Order Surrender of Property.</p> <p>A court of bankruptcy has jurisdiction by a summary proceeding to require a third party having in bis possession money or property claimed to belong to the bankrupt’s estate to show cause why he should not pay over or surrender the same to the trustee, and to inquire into the nature of such party’s possession. If he held it prior to the bankruptcy proceedings, under an adverse claim asserted in good faith, the court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate such claim on the merits without his consent; but, if no adverse claim was made at the time the petition in bankruptcy was filed, the title to the money or property passed to the trustee on his appointment, and the court has jurisdiction to require its surrender to him by a summary order, notwithstanding any adverse right subsequently asserted by the party in possession.</p> <p>2. Same—Adverse Claimant—Fund Held in Fiduciary Capacity.</p> <p>An insolvent partnership sold its stock of goods, and by its direction the purchaser deposited the price in a bank, taking a receipt therefor, showing that the money was to be prorated among the several creditors of the firm as their interests might appear. Subsequently, on petition of creditors, the partnership was adjudicated an involuntary bankrupt. After such adjudication the bank undertook to apply the money so deposited on certain notes of the firm held by it and another creditor, without the consent of the depositor or the bankrupts, and it refused the demand of the trustee therefor. <EeW, that the bank held the deposit in a fiduciary capacity, as a trust fund, which precluded it from asserting an adverse claim thereto after the bankruptcy as against the trustee.</p> <p>8. Same—Order Requiring Fund to be Paid to Trustee—Interest.</p> <p>A summary order made by a court of bankruptcy requiring a third party to pay over to a trustee money of an estate in his. possession should not include interest on the amo
Judges: Maxey
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Union Bank & Trust Co. of Helena v. LobleNinth Circuit· 1927-05-31· cited 17×
- In re BaconSecond Circuit· 1913-12-09· cited 16×
- Wagner v. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co.Tennessee Supreme Court· 1909-09-15· cited 14×
- In re Gans & KleinD. Montana· 1926-08-23· cited 8×
- Twentieth Street Bank v. GilmoreFourth Circuit· 1934-06-11· cited 6×
- Seattle Curb Exchange v. KnightNinth Circuit· 1932-04-04· cited 4×
- In re ScherberD. Massachusetts· 1904-07-22· cited 4×
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Bardes v. Hawarden BankSupreme Court· 1900-05-21· cited 382×
- Louisville Trust Co. v. ComingorSupreme Court· 1902-01-27· cited 218×
- Bryan v. BernheimerSupreme Court· 1901-04-15· cited 192×
- Bank v. ShermanSupreme Court· 1880-02-18· cited 122×
- Libby v. HopkinsSupreme Court· 1881-12-19· cited 104×
- Continental National Bank v. WeemsTexas Supreme Court· 1888-01-17· cited 70×
- In re RosserEighth Circuit· 1900-04-02· cited 64×
- In re PurvineFifth Circuit· 1899-06-28· cited 25×
- Montagu v. Pacific BankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California· 1897-06-24· cited 13×
- Wilson v. DawsonIndiana Supreme Court· 1876-05-15· cited 11×
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.