Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/95650/ginsberg-sons-inc-vs-popkin
Timestamp: 2019-06-25 10:26:07
Document Index: 260641836

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 261', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 2', '§ 9']

Ginsberg and Sons Inc Vs Popkin - Citation 95650 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Ginsberg and Sons, Inc. Vs. Popkin - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/95650
Case Number 285 U.S. 204
Appellant Ginsberg and Sons, Inc.
Respondent Popkin
.....of appeals reversed. 50 f.2d 693. the petitioner contends that clause (15) of § 2 empowers district judges in bankruptcy cases, upon the application of a creditor, to issue orders directing the arrest of officers of bankrupt corporations. the words of § 2 relied on are: "the courts of bankruptcy . . . are hereby invested . . . with such jurisdiction at law and in equity as will enable them to exercise original jurisdiction in bankruptcy proceedings . . . to . . . (15) make such orders, issue such process, and enter such judgments in addition to those specifically provided for as may be necessary for the enforcement of the provisions of this title." clause (15) is to be construed having regard to the other parts of § 2, to the provisions of the act in respect of.....
Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin - 285 U.S. 204 (1932)
U.S. Supreme Court Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin, 285 U.S. 204 (1932)
Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin
285 U.S. 204
A court of bankruptcy has no authority under § 2(15) of the Bankruptcy Act or § 261 of the Judicial Code to issue a writ of ne exeat against an absconding officer of a bankrupt corporation to the end that he may be examined in the bankruptcy proceedings. P. 285 U. S. 206 .
The District Court in the Eastern District of New York adjudged the Foster Construction Corporation a bankrupt and in June, 1930, a trustee was appointed. Respondent was president, and petitioner was a creditor of
Page 285 U. S. 205
the corporation. December 4, 1930, petitioner presented to one of the judges in the Southern district of New York a petition, the brief substance of which follows:
On these representations, the judge made an order of examination and arrest. And, on the same day, he signed another order, under the caption "Writ Ne Exeat, " commanding the marshal to apprehend respondent, take him into custody, and bring him before the judge for examination,
In obedience to that command, the marshal arrested respondent. He gave the prescribed bail, and
Page 285 U. S. 206
the clerk released him from custody. Then respondent applied to a judge in the Southern District to have the order vacated on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction. The motion was denied. 47 F.2d 276. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 50 F.2d 693.
Section 2 creates courts of bankruptcy, and, in general terms, by twenty separately numbered clauses, confers upon them authority in respect of at least as many matters relating to bankruptcies. By clause (13), bankruptcy courts are empowered, by means of fine or imprisonment, to enforce obedience by bankrupts and others to all lawful orders, and by clause (16) to punish persons for contempts committed before referees. Section 7a(9) makes it the duty of the bankrupt, when present at the first meeting of creditors and at such other times as the court shall order, to submit to examination concerning his business, acts, and property. Section 21a empowers the court, upon the application of a creditor, to require any designated person, including the bankrupt, to appear for similar
Page 285 U. S. 207
examination. Section 9a, exempts the bankrupt from arrest upon civil process issued from a court of bankruptcy except for contempt or disobedience of its lawful orders. And § 9b specifically governs arrests and detention of bankrupts about to leave the district in order to avoid examination. It is as follows:
In view of the general exemption of bankrupts from arrest under § 9a and the carefully guarded exception made by § 9b as to those about to leave the district to
Page 285 U. S. 208
avoid examination, there is no support for petitioner's contention that the general language of § 2(15) is a limitation upon § 9(b) or grants additional authority in respect of arrests of bankrupts. General language of a statutory provision, although broad enough to include it, will not be held to apply to a matter specifically dealt with in another part of the same enactment. United States v. Chase, 135 U. S. 255 , 135 U. S. 260 . Specific terms prevail over the general in the same or another statute which otherwise might be controlling. Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100 , 195 U. S. 125 ; In re Hassenbusch, 108 F. 35, 38; United States ex rel. Kelley v. Peters, 166 F. 613, 615. The construction contended for would violate the cardinal rule that, if possible, effect shall be given to every clause and part of a statute. Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112 , 101 U. S. 115 ; Ex parte Public Bank, 278 U. S. 101 , 278 U. S. 104 .
"At common law, it was simply a writ to obtain equitable bail. It was issued by a court of equity on application of the complainant against the defendant when it appeared that there was a debt positively due, certain in amount, or capable of being made certain, on an equitable demand not suable at law (except in cases of account and possibly some other cases of concurrent jurisdiction), and that the defendant was about to leave the jurisdiction, having conveyed away his property, or under other circumstances which would render any decree ineffectual. Dean v. Smith, 23 Wis. 483; Rhodes v.
Page 285 U. S. 209
Cousins, 6 Rand. 188, 191; Gibert v. Colt, 1 Hopk.Ch. 496, and note."