finding that, to hold a recognized right, a creditor must possess a right in the debtor’s property, not a “mere claim against the debtor”
How later courts described this case
- finding that, to hold a recognized right, a creditor must possess a right in the debtor’s property, not a “mere claim against the debtor”
- “Today ... it is likely that the Delaware statute involved in the Pusey & Jones case would be regarded as supplying a substantive right which the federal courts in a diversity action would recognize.... [E]quitable remedial rights thus can be thought of as merged into ... the area of substantive rights. We see no bar to the appointment of a receiver if the law of Pennsylvania would grant the appointment.”
- observing that the “appointment of a receiver is an equitable remedy of rather drastic nature”
- describing a court-appointed receiver as “an equitable remedy of rather drastic nature”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GOODRICH, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I have no dispute with the conclusion that there must be a reversal because this is not a proper case for the appointment of a receiver. In so doing it seems to me worth making one point which has been made by this Court in several cases. The point is that we do not feel bound by state law in determining whether an equitable remedy is to be given or whether a plaintiff is relegated to his remedies at law. We have said this several times and are not departing from it now.
*827 The cases are: Black & Yates, Inc. v. Mahogany Ass’n, Inc., 3 Cir., 1942, 129 F.2d 227, 232-233 , 148 A.L.R. 841 ; Hertz v. Record Publishing Co., 3 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 397, 398, note 2 ; Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Du Bois Brewing Co., 3 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 370, 373 ; Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz, 3 Cir., 1948, 172 F.2d 80, 81-82 ; First Camden Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 3 Cir., 1942, 132 F.2d 114, 118 .
Judge KALODNER agrees with this ■concurring opinion.