U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1951

Goggin v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 8, 1951 · Bone, Healy, Orr, Per Curiam

190 F.2d 553; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3603 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Martin Gendel, Bernard Shapiro, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., Wright & Garrett, Harold F. Collins and Charles T. Munger, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee Consolidated Liquidating Corp., Ernest A. Tolin, U. S. Atty., Clyde C. Downing and Tobias G. Klinger, Assts., all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee U. S. A.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Pacific Homes (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1978)
Matthews v. United Methodist Church (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1978)
In the Matter of American Southern Publishing Company, Bankrupt. The First National Bank of Mobile v. George Lewis Bailes, Jr., the Trustee (1st Cir. 1970)
1 Collier bankr.cas.2d 281, Bankr. L. Rep. P 67,291 in Re Pacific Homes, Debtor. Richard E. Matthews v. The United Methodist Church (9th Cir. 1980)
In The Matter Of United General Wood Products Corporation (9th Cir. 1973)
Clements v. Internal Revenue Service (9th Cir. 1973)
In The Matter Of Perspectron, Inc. (7th Cir. 1970)
Balzano v. Aero-Dyne Corp. (7th Cir. 1970)

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 appeal is from a reversal by the district court of an order of a bankruptcy referee directing the turnover of a sum of money found to be owing the bankrupts by appellee Consolidated on open account. Prior to the bankruptcy the United States Maritime Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S. C.A. § 51, had notified Consolidated to withhold any moneys claimed to be due the bankrupts. In the summary proceeding before the referee, in which the United States intervened, it was developed that substantial questions exist whether Consolidated owes or is obliged to pay any sum to the bankrupt estate. Objection was timely made to the exercise of summary jurisdiction. The district court on proceedings to review held that the claim which the United States was making on Consolidated was substantial, not merely colorable, hence both those parties were entitled to have their rights adjudicated in a plenary suit.

The ruling was obviously correct, Cline v. Kaplan, 323 U.S. 97, 65 S.Ct. 155, 89 L.Ed. 97; Harrison v. Chamberlin, 271 U.S. 191, 195, 46 S.Ct. 467, 70 L.Ed. 897, and the order reversing the referee is affirmed.

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