U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1943

Frank v. Drinc-O-Matic, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided June 11, 1943 · Hand, Chase

136 F.2d 906; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3168 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Hamilton Mclnnes and Vahan H Kalenderian, both of New York City, for appellants., Maurice Rubinger and Underhill & Rubinger, all of New York City (Robert Jacobs, of New York City, of counsel), for trustees-appellees.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re The Lionel Corporation (2d Cir. 1983)
Marathon Foundry and Machine Company v. Schwartz (7th Cir. 1956)
Marathon Foundry & Machine Co. v. Schwartz (7th Cir. 1955)
In re Chrysler LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2009)
Committee of Equity Security Holders v. Lionel Corp. (In re the Lionel Corp.) (2d Cir. 1983)
Investors Funding Corporation of New York v. Bloor (2d Cir. 1979)
Union Bank v. Bloor (2d Cir. 1979)
In re the Duplan Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1977)
In the Matter of Equity Funding Corporation of America, Debtor. Financial Associates, a Limited Partnership v. Robert M. Loeffler, Trustee (9th Cir. 1974)
In the Matter of Wonderbowl, Inc., a California Corporation, Debtor. Caruso Enterprises, Inc. v. A. J. Bumb, Trustee (9th Cir. 1970)
Sportservice Corp. v. Northern Illinois Development Corp. (7th Cir. 1963)
Matter Of Marathon Foundry & Machine Company (7th Cir. 1957)
Marathon Foundry & Machine Co. v. Schwartz (7th Cir. 1956)
In re Solar Mfg. Corp. (3d Cir. 1949)
In re v. Loewer's Gambrinus Brewery Co. (2d Cir. 1944)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order in bankruptcy, directing the sale for $9500 of nineteen automatic vending machines belonging to the debtor, which were in the possession of their manufacturer, who claimed a lien upon them in the sum of $4,754.79. It is not necessary to state in detail the evidence which justified the sale in the minds of the special master and the district judge who confirmed his report. Notice of the application was given to all known creditors, and the situation of the debtor was such as might well make it desirable to release the machines from the vendor’s claim even if its validity was questionable, which there is no reason to suspect. The trustee had no funds with which to redeem the machines, and after six months no plan of reorganization had been proposed. Possibly, though not certainly, the sale will force on a liquidation; in any event that is not a controlling consideration. The petition having been approved, the court had power to sell any property of the debtor, “upon such terms and conditions as the judge may approve.” § 116 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 516(3). To succeed the appellants must persuade us to substitute our discretion for that of the district court, and that under familiar principles we should not, and will not do.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.