In re Litchfield
District Court, E.D. Michigan
In Bankruptcy. On petition of the assignee for an injunction, and for an attachment for contempt against Thomas Nestor for unlawfully interfering with, the property of the bankrupt. The facts of this case are substantially as follows: In 1873 Litchfield was adjudicated a bankrupt in the district court for the southern district of Hew York, and petitioner, who is a resident of the city of Hew York, was appointed assignee.
Read the full summary
In Bankruptcy. On petition of the assignee for an injunction, and for an attachment for contempt against Thomas Nestor for unlawfully interfering with, the property of the bankrupt. The facts of this case are substantially as follows: In 1873 Litchfield was adjudicated a bankrupt in the district court for the southern district of Hew York, and petitioner, who is a resident of the city of Hew York, was appointed assignee. Among the assets of the bankrupt were about 4,600 acres of pine land and mill property situated in his state, the title to which was vested in Litchfield under a deed made in…
1Opinion of the Court
Brown, D. J.
The assignee insists that the respondent should be punished for contempt (1) in notifying the boom company not to deliver to the assignee the logs cut from the lands in question under authority of the order of the district court for. the southern district of New York; (2) in bringing ejectment suits in the state courts against the parties in possession of these lands under the assignee; (3) in replevying a portion of the lumber cut from the logs from Fisher, who had purchased the same from the assignee.
The respondent insists with great earnestness that the district court for the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Freeman v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- James L. v. CarrylSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- Ex Parte KearneySupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Eyster v. GaffSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- New Orleans v. Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1874
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Beekman Lumber Co. v. Acme Harvester Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. MartinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927