In re Whipple
District Court, N.D. Illinois
This was a rule to show cause why certain judgment creditors of the bankrupt [R. M. Whipple] should not be enjoined from proceeding under creditors’ bills against the bankrupt in the state courts, and from enforcing an assignment by the debtor to the receiver appointed in such creditors’ suits.
Read the full summary
This was a rule to show cause why certain judgment creditors of the bankrupt [R. M. Whipple] should not be enjoined from proceeding under creditors’ bills against the bankrupt in the state courts, and from enforcing an assignment by the debtor to the receiver appointed in such creditors’ suits. On the Sth day of August. 1874. Louis Stix and others filed in the circuit court of Cook county an or-dinaiy creditors’ bill to enforce a judgment against Whipple previously recovered in that court. On the fourth day of November, 1875. a receiver of the debtor’s effects was appointed in that suit, and…
1Opinion of the Court
BLODGETT, District Judge.
This question came before me in the case of the National Insurance Company, which was also a case where a creditors’ bill had been filed in the state court, on which a receiver was appointed and took possession of the assets of the company, and proceedings in bankruptcy were then instituted against the company. I had occasion to investigate the question very thoroughly in that case, and after a very careful examination in the light of the authorities, both in this country and in England. I came to the conclusion that the proceedings in bankruptcy superseded the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bear v. ChaseCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1900
- Lea v. George M. West Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1899
- State v. German Exchange BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902