Legal Opinion

Ash Handkerchief Corp. v. Hickory Finishing, Inc. (In Re Ash Handkerchief Corp.)

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 5, 1996No. 18-13610PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF DEFENDANT’S LIEN

STUART M. BERNSTEIN, Bankruptcy Judge:

This adversary proceeding requires us to determine the nature and extent of a textile processor’s hen under North Carohna law. On the petition date, the defendant Hickory Finishing, Inc. (“Hickory”), held goods dehv-ered by the plaintiff, Ash Handkerchief Corp., d/b/a American Sock & Hosiery (the “debtor” or “Ash”), for processing. Ash owes Hickory substantial sums in connection with unpaid prepetition processing charges, and Hickory asserts a statutory hen in the goods it held. Ash commenced…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Matter of HeinsheimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. International Electronics Co. v. N. S. T. Metal Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  4. Adder v. Holman & Moody, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  5. Wiles Laundering Co. v. . HahloNew York Court of Appeals · 1887

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hirsch Ex Rel. Centennial Textiles, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Textile Corp. (In Re Centennial Textiles, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1998
  2. Wallace v. Lechman & Johnson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  3. In Re UAL Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API