Case ID: f_283/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CLAYTON, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re CLEMENT D. CATES & CO.
    (District Court, S. D. Florida.
    September 8, 1922.)
    Bankruptcy <&=»I40(i/2) — -Where bankrupt converted shares of stock, claimant has preferred claim on proceeds in trustee’s hands.
    Where bankrupt converted stock belonging to claimant, the latter has a preferred claim on the proceeds derived therefrom, which are in trustee’s bands, as trustee secured.no better claim than bankrupt would have had.
    In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the bankruptcy of Clement D. Cates & Co. On petition to review a finding disallowing the claim of John M. Miller as one of preference or priority.
    Claim allowed as a preferred claim.
    See, also, 283 Fed. 541.
    Addison H. Hazeltine and A. J. Rose, both of Miami, Fla., for petitioner.
    P. L. Gaskins, of Jacksonville, Fla., for trustee.
    Geo. M. Powell, of Jacksonville, Fla., for bankrupt.
   CLAYTON, District Judge.

This matter comes up on the petition of John M. Miller, disallowing his claim as one of preference or priority. It is shown in the record and testimony in the case that the trustee now has in his hands $881.15, which it is admitted is the amount which was received by the bankrupts from the conversion of the shares of stock belonging to the petitioner, Miller, and the proceeds of such stock, the amount above named, is now in the hands of the trustee of the-bankrupt estate.

It is familiar that in respect to these funds so derived the trustee can have no better right or title than the bankrupt would have had, and of course such bankrupt, in the absence of these proceedings could not lawfully retain such funds belonging to the petitioner. Central Nat. Bank, etc., v. Conn. M. L. Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 54, 26 L. Ed. 693; Bank v. King, 57 Pa. 202, 98 Am. Dec. 215; W. G. Bank v. Norvell, 134 Fed. 724, 69 C. C. A. 330; Sou. P. Co., etc., v. Savannah, etc., 141 Fed. 802, 73 C. C. A. 60; Smith v. Mottley, 150 Fed. 266, 80 C. C. A. 154; Smith v. Township, etc., 150 Fed. 257, 80 C. C. A. 145, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 876. 
      @=»For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in‘all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes?