Legal Opinion · Dissent

N. L. Wymard and George L. Stark, Receivers of Kemmel & Co., Inc., Debtor v. McCloskey & Co., Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 11, 1965No. 14598_1Published

1DissentKalodner, Circuit Judge

I would vacate the judgment of the District Court for the reason that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain this action.

I agree with the majority’s view that “the claim of diversity jurisdiction fails” by reason of the fact that the pleadings fail to satisfy the requirements as to diversity jurisdiction.

I disagree, however, with its view that jurisdiction exists under the Bankruptcy Act by reason of the defendant’s asserted “consent” to the institution and prosecution of the instant action.

Section 23(b) provides that suits must “be brought or prosecuted only in the courts where the bankrupt…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bardes v. Hawarden BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Gins v. Mauser Plumbing Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  3. Schumacher v. BeelerSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Williams v. AustrianSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. Bush v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1906

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