Legal Opinion

In re Mirsky

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 9, 1942No. 128PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the district court reported at 39 F.Supp. 773.

This is not a situation where a debtor has changed his position to his detriment. Particularly where, as here, the assets of the estate seemed so small that appointment of a trustee to hold title to the contingent interest would have involved what justifiably appeared to be needless expense, mere nonaction by the creditors is not sufficient to constitute an abandonment. The doctrine of Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Logan, 5 Cir., 92 F.2d 28 and Tuffy v. Nichols, 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 906 is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. LoganCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1937
  2. Tuffy v. NicholsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
  3. In re MirskyDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1941

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Henry A. Kokoszka, BankruptsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
  2. Matthews v. CorreaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  3. George Scharmer v. Carrollton Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
  4. Zeigler Building Materials, Inc. v. ParkisonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
  5. Hull v. PowellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962

5 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