Legal Opinion
In re Gubelman
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 2, 1925No. 55PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
We have held, quite plainly as it seems to us, that if A. in*487trusts to B. moneys for investment in a particular manner, but B. does not carry out Ms undertaking- and becomes bankrupt, A. may recover Ms money out of any fund belonging to B.’s estate into wliich A.’s money can be traced. The reason for this ruling is that B., by undertaking, as stated, assumed a fiduciary relation to A., and by neglecting to invest as agreed was guilty of a breach of trust. In re Bolognesi, 254 F. 770, 166 C. C. A. 216; In re Jarmulowsky, 258 F. 231, 169 C. C. A. 297; In re…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Gravenhorst v. . ZimmermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Legniti v. Mechanics & Metals National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
- In re BolognesiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- In re BrownCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Citizens' Nat. BankDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1932