Case ID: f_140/html/0859-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROSS, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re HECKMAN et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    October 23, 1905.)
    No. 1,166.
    Bankruptcy — Jurisdiction of Court — Property in Possession of State Court.
    A court of bankruptcy cannot administer upon property of a bankrupt, which at the time of the filing of the petition was in the actual possession of a receiver appointed by a state court more than four months previously, and which was subsequently sold by order of the state court in the same proceeding.
    Petition for Revision of Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Washington, in Bankruptcy.
    Jerold Landon Finch, for petitioners.
    R. A. Ballinger, J. F. Ronald, and Alfred Battle, for respondent.
    Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
   ROSS, Circuit Judge.

An order will be entered striking from the records the addendum to the petitioners’ brief. The petition is an original proceeding in this court to obtain the review and revision, pursuant to the provisions of section 24b of the bankruptcy act of July 1, 1898 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3432], of the action of the District Court for the state of Washington in refusing to reopen the estate of the bankrupts and administer upon property of theirs which, according to the record before us, was in the actual possession of a receiver appointed by the superior court of the county of King, state of Washington, in a suit brought by a creditor of Heckman and Hanson more than four months before they filed their petition in the court below to be adjudged bankrupts, under process of which state court the property the petitioners now seek to have the court of bankruptcy undertake to administer, was sold and disposed of. That this .cannot be done is conclusively settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pickens v. Roy, 187 U. S. 177, 23 Sup. Ct. 78, 47 L. Ed. 128, and Metcalf v. Barker, 187 U. S. 165, 23 Sup. Ct. 67, 47 L. Ed. 122. See, also, Frazier et al. v. Southern Loan & Trust Co., 99 Fed. 707, 40 C. C. A. 76; In re Price (D. C.) 92 Fed. 987.

Proceedings dismissed, at the petitioners’ cost.