Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Rosamond A. ULIZIO, et al., Appellants, v. J. B. VAN SCIVER CO., Appellee, 1932 — 57 F.2d 1085 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
Rosamond A. ULIZIO, et al., Appellants, v. J. B. VAN SCIVER CO., Appellee
57 F.2d 1085·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Rosamond A. ULIZIO, et al., Appellants, v. J. B. VAN SCIVER CO., Appellee.
No. 4884.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
April 30, 1932.
Robert H. McCarter, of Newark, N. J., for appellants.
Harvey F. Carr and Carr & Carroll, all of Camden, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAYIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This was an appeal from an order of the court below, sitting in bankruptcy, restraining the appellants from disposing of certain property, real and personal, which it is alleged belongs to the bankrupt estate. Proceedings are now pending to have the alleged bankrupt declared to be a bankrupt. Pending that proceeding, and in view of the omission of the appellants to inform the court as to the nature of their claim, so as to enable it to now determine whether the alleged claim should be passed on by the court itself or whether the trustee, in ease the alleged bankrupt is so adjudged, should proceed by plenary action, this restraining orden was granted.
Wo find no error in the court making such cautionary order to enable it to keep control over the property meanwhile. We accordingly dismiss the present appeal.