Greene v. Moore (1919) · DecisionDepot

Greene v. Moore

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Sep 2, 1919 No. Civ. No. 2983.Published

Before: Richards

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a creditor cannot sue a bankruptcy trustee in state court for refusing to bring an action on behalf of the estate, as the trustee has discretion in such matters and the federal court maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the trustee's actions.

Issues

Whether a complaint by a creditor against a bankruptcy trustee for refusing to sue on behalf of the estate states a cause of action.
Whether a state court has jurisdiction over a bankruptcy trustee's actions while bankruptcy proceedings are pending in federal court.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The complaint failed utterly to show any abuse of the discretion with which the trustees of bankrupts are invested with respect to the bringing of actions in the interest and for the benefit of the estate.”

“The jurisdiction of the federal court over the assets of said bankrupt and over the actions of said trustee is exclusive, and the state courts have no jurisdiction over either during the pendency there of said proceedings.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant after an order sustaining his demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend.

The action is one brought by the plaintiff as one of the creditors of one R. B. Tolmie, a bankrupt, the plaintiff purporting to bring said action on behalf of himself and many other creditors of said bankrupt, though who or how many of these creditors there are, or by what authority the plaintiff assumes to represent them, is not made to appear. The complaint alleges that the proceedings in bankruptcy of said Tolmie are pending in the United States district court of the southern district of California, wherein the said Tolmie has been duly adjudicated a bankrupt, and wherein the defendant herein has been, and still is, the duly appointed, qualified, and acting trustee of the estate of said bankrupt. The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff herein has demanded of such trustee that he commence a certain action against certain parties who are alleged to have seized and sold certain property of said bankrupt, and for the value of which said parties are alleged to be liable to said estate; that the defendant as such trustee has refused to commence said action, by which refusal the plaintiff and the other parties whom he assumes to represent have been damaged in the sum of $862.27, for which sum he prays judgment against said trustee.

The defendant demurred to this complaint upon two main grounds: First, that said complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action. The court sustained this demurrer generally without leave to amend.

[1]

We are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court rendered after making said order was proper for both of the reasons urged in said demurrer. The complaint failed utterly to show any abuse of the discretion with which the trustees of bankrupts are invested with respect to the bringing of actions in the interest and for the benefit of the estate.

[2]

He and not a creditor or any number of creditors is the sole judge of the matter of when or whether to bring such actions; and in the absence of an alleged abuse of the dis

[93]

Greene v. Moore

AI Brief

Synopsis

RICHARDS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief