In re Leeds Woolen Mills
Citations
- 129 F. 922
- 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 321
Syllabus
<p>1. Bankruptcy — Jurisdiction of Court — Determining Adverse Ownership-of Property.</p> <p>The fact that property was in the actual possession of a bankrupt at the time of the filing of the petition, and was by him surrendered with his other property to a receiver or custodian ad interim appointed by the court, places such property in custodia legis, and gives the court of bankruptcy jurisdiction to determine its ownership as between the trustee-subsequently appointed and an adverse claimant; and such jurisdiction-is not affected by the fact that the receiver, acting without authority, surrendered possession of the property to the claimant.</p> <p>2. Same — Property Wrongfully Taken from Custody of Court.</p> <p>One who has obtained possession of goods from a receiver appointed! by a court of bankruptcy, who had no authority to surrender the same, by such intermeddling with property in the custody of the court submits-himself to its jurisdiction for all purposes properly connected with proceedings to compel him to restore the property or its value, and where he has disposed of it, claiming to be the owner, the court may determine the-question of ownership in the same proceeding as a matter affecting the-propriety of entering a decree against him for its value.</p> <p>3. Same — Adverse Claimant of Property — Burden of Proof.</p> <p>On the question whether a shipment of goods to an insolvent company a short time prior to its bankruptcy was pursuant to a sale, or whether the transaction was such that the shipper remained the owner, he has the burden of proof as against the trustee in bankruptcy, and his claim to-ownership will not be sustained unless he fully and fairly discloses all the facts bearing on the nature of the transaction, and such facts show clearly that a sale was not intended at the time.</p> <p>4. Same — Bailors as Adverse Claimants.</p> <p>Bailors permitting their goods, in the hands of an insolvent bailee becoming bankrupt, to pass into the custody
Judges: Hammond
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Bardes v. Hawarden BankSupreme Court· 1900-05-21· cited 382×
- Byers v. McAuleySupreme Court· 1893-05-10· cited 281×
- White v. SchloerbSupreme Court· 1900-05-21· cited 163×
- Sunflower Oil Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court· 1892-01-04· cited 71×
- Ober v. GallagherSupreme Court· 1876-11-18· cited 67×
- In re Antigo Screen Door Co.Seventh Circuit· 1903-04-14· cited 45×
- In re KelloggSecond Circuit· 1903-03-12· cited 36×
- Ward v. ToddSupreme Court· 1881-01-24· cited 27×
- In re J. C. Winship Co.Seventh Circuit· 1903-01-06· cited 16×
- Mueller v. NugentSixth Circuit· 1901-01-08· cited 13×
- In re KelloggW.D. New York· 1902-01-27· cited 12×
- Fidelity Trust & Guaranty Co. v. Fowler Water Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana· 1902-01-21· cited 11×
- Beach v. Macon Grocery Co.Fifth Circuit· 1902-05-13· cited 11×
- Old Colony Trust Co. v. Dubuque Light & Traction Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa· 1898-10-28· cited 11×
- City of Centerville v. Fidelity Trust & Guaranty Co.Eighth Circuit· 1902-09-29· cited 7×
- In re CorbettE.D. Wisconsin· 1900-11-17· cited 6×
- The Eliza LinesFirst Circuit· 1902-02-13· cited 5×
- In re GutmanS.D. New York· 1902-05-08· cited 5×
- In re GibbsD. Vermont· 1900-08-15· cited 3×
- Barrett v. Twin City Power Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina· 1902-11-22· cited 3×
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.