From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Custom Shop

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jul 21, 1932
1 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1932)

Opinion

July 21, 1932.

David H. Sloane, of New York City, for petitioner to review.

Irving J. Kirschenbaum, of New York City (Bernard A. Grossman, of New York City, of counsel), for receiver.


In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the Custom Shop, Incorporated, bankrupt. On petition to review an order of the referee (Miller) enjoining a preferred creditor from disposing of money received, pending suit by trustee in bankruptcy.

Petition dismissed, and order of referee affirmed.


This petition to review is dismissed, and the order of the referee is affirmed.

If the claim of Karmin to the moneys here in dispute were colorable merely, there would not be any question but that the referee, pending the exercise of summary jurisdiction, would have the right to enjoin any disposition of said moneys under the familiar theory of maintaining the status quo by an injunction pendente lite.

It is only because the claim of Karmin to the moneys herein involved is not held to be colorable merely, but to be presumably adverse, that Karmin's counsel here has any arguable thesis. His argument summarized is: That as this is a case for a plenary suit of which the referee would not have jurisdiction, he is issuing, in effect, an injunction in a lis pending outside the bankruptcy court.

The answer to this prima facie plausible argument is that the exigencies of bankruptcy proceedings require the maintenance of the status quo in regard to the bankrupt's estate for the benefit of all its creditors. Consequently very drastic forms of interlocutory relief are countenanced by the court under its general equity powers. Cf. Bankr. Act § 2 (15), 11 USCA § 11 (15); Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U.S. 188, 195-197, 21 S. Ct. 557, 45 L. Ed. 814; Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U.S. 421, 426, 3 S. Ct. 289, 27 L. Ed. 984; Sharpe v. Doyle, 102 U.S. 686, 689, 690, 26 L. Ed. 277. Among these forms of interlocutory relief the injunctive relief given by the referee here is appropriate and approved. Cf. In re Mitchell (C.C.A.) 278 F. 707, 709; In re Norris (D.C.) 177 F. 598, 599; In re Blake (D.C.) 171 F. 298, 299.

Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

In re Custom Shop

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jul 21, 1932
1 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1932)
Case details for

In re Custom Shop

Case Details

Full title:In re CUSTOM SHOP, Inc

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jul 21, 1932

Citations

1 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1932)

Citing Cases

In re Three Pines Restaurant

In re Mitchell, 278 F. 707 (C.C.A. 2); In re Nathan Turim, Inc., 55 F.2d 672 (D.C.N.Y.); In re Custom Shop,…

In re Metzger's, Inc.

"Where a plenary proceeding is necessary to avoid fraudulent transfers, the court may, nevertheless, in a…