Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bank of Marin v. England

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 5, 1966No. 63Published

1DissentJustice Harlan

The Court, in its haste to alleviate an indisputable inequity to the bank, disregards, in my opinion, both the proper principles of statutory construction and the most permanent interests of bankruptcy administration. I must dissent.1

The Act itself is unambiguous. Section 70a vests title to the bankrupt's property in the trustee “as of the date of the filing of the petition.” 52 Stat. 879, 11 *104U. S. C. § 110 (a). Section 70d nonetheless sustains bona fide transfers of the property made after filing and “before adjudication or before a receiver takes possession . . . whichever first occurs. . .…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  3. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  4. Muskrat v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API