Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Drincup Vendors, Inc. v. Fountain Machines, Inc.

134 F.2d 823

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1943-04-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. On July 31, 1942 the district court entered an order approving the petition of Fountain Machines, Tnc., as properly filed under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., and staying all suits against the debtor. Thereafter Drincup Vendors, Inc., moved that the general stay be lifted to permit it to prosecute an action previously commenced in a state court against the debtor and one Hollinger. This is an appeal from a denial of that motion. Summons in the state court action had been served on the debtor only and the complaint had not been filed or served.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Drincup Vendors, Inc. v. Fountain Machines, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
DRINCUP VENDORS v. FOUNTAIN MACHINES,134 F.2d 823(2nd Cir. 1943)
DRINCUP VENDORS, Inc., v. FOUNTAIN MACHINES, Inc.
No. 205.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 2, 1943.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Petition for corporate reorganization by Fountain Machines, Inc., debtor, wherein after the District Court entered an order approving the petition and staying all suits against the debtor, Drincup Vendors, Inc., moved that the general stay be lifted to permit it to prosecute an action previously commenced in the state court against the debtor and another. From an order denying such motion, Drincup Vendors, Inc., appeals.

Affirmed.
Vahan H. Kalenderian, of New York City, for appellant.

Underhill Rubinger, of New York City (Maurice Rubinger and Robert Jacobs, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On July 31, 1942 the district court entered an order approving the petition of Fountain Machines, Inc., as properly filed under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., and staying all suits against the debtor. Thereafter Drincup Vendors, Inc., moved that the general stay be lifted to permit it to prosecute an action previously commenced in a state court against the debtor and one Hollinger. This is an appeal from a denial of that motion. Summons in the state court action had been served on the debtor only and the complaint had not been filed or served. From the moving affidavit it appears that the action "is predicated upon breach of two written contracts as well as tort." In Chapter X proceedings the district judge has discretion to stay all suits against the debtor. 11 U.S.C.A. § 516(4). We can upset the stay only if discretion was abused. The appellant has not established such abuse in the case at bar. The order is affirmed.Page 824