Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
In the Matter of S. O. S. Sheet Metal Co., Inc., Debtor-appellee,hackensack Plumbing Supply Co., Appellant.in the Matter of Hudik-ross Co., Inc. (new York), Debtor,hudik-ross Inc. (new Jersey), Debtor-appellee,hackensack Plumbing Supply Co., Appellant
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 297 F.2d 32
Argued December 13, 1961 Decided December 18, 1961
Frank Weinstein, of Weinstein & Levinson, New York City (Irving Steinman, Samuel Weinstein, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Samuel A. Arutt, of Handelsman, Arutt & Knox, New York City, for appellees.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MOORE and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Hudik-Ross Co. Inc. (New York), Hudik-Ross Inc. (New Jersey) and S. O. S. Sheet Metal Co. Inc., filed petitions for an arrangement in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Hackensack Plumbing Supply Co., a creditor of Hudik-Ross (New Jersey) and S. O. S., made application under § 32 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 55) for an order transferring the proceedings, insofar as they relate to Hudik-Ross (New Jersey) and S. O. S., to the District Court for the District of New Jersey. This application was denied. We affirm that disposition.
A motion under § 32 is addressed to the sound discretion of the judge. While discretion to retain jurisdiction "in the interest of justice" should be exercised with great caution and in few cases, the reasons given by Judge McGohey in the present case are sufficient to support the result which he reached.