TRAILMOBILE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER G. WISEMAN, TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the referee had summary jurisdiction and that the appellant's security interest was an unrecorded chattel mortgage invalid against the trustee in bankruptcy.
Appellant's lien on tank trucks was challenged by the trustee in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy receiver possessed the trucks at the time of proceedings, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bankruptcy Court Summary Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court affirming a referee’s ruling that appellant’s lien on certain tank trucks was invalid as against the trustee in bankruptcy.
The court correctly held that the referee had summary jurisdiction by virtue of the actual possession of the tank trucks by the bankruptcy receiver at the time of the proceedings. Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 1940, 309 U.S. 478, 481, 60 S.Ct. 628, 84 L.Ed. 876; In re Prokop, 7 Cir., 1933, 65 F. 2d 628.
The court was also correct in concluding that under Michigan law appellant’s security interest was not a conditional sale contract, but a chattel mortgage, which was invalid against the trustee in bankruptcy because an intervening creditor had extended credit to the bankrupt after the instrument was executed and before it was recorded. Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Wieselberg, 1925, 230 Mich. 15, 203 N.W. 160; Deane v. Fidelity Corp. of Michigan, D.C.W.D.Mich.1949, 82 F.Supp. 710; Moore v. Bay, 1931, 284 U.S. 4, 52 S.Ct. 3, 76 L.Ed. 133.
The statute upon which appellant relies, Mich.Stat.Ann. § 26.929, Comp.Laws 1948, § 566.140 (as amended August 11, 1956, Pub.Laws 1956, No. 153), enacted long after the transaction in issue, is inapplicable to this case.
The judgment is affirmed upon the findings and conclusions of Judge Picard.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Casco Chem. Co. v. Superintendence Co., Inc., 335 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1964)
-
In re Todor R. Alikaso-Vich v. Mfrs. Nat'l Bank OF Detroit, 275 F.2d 454 (6th Cir. 1960)
-
Hertzberg v. Assocs. Disc. Corp., 272 F.2d 6 (6th Cir. 1959)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 309 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1940)
- Moore in Bankr. for the Est. of Sassard & Kimball, Inc. v. BAY, 284 U.S. 4 (U.S. 1931)
- In re Prokop v. Schwemer, 65 F.2d 628 (7th Cir. 1933)