# Mintzer v. Arthur L. Wright & Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · February 17, 1959 · 263 F.2d 823

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6917379

## Case

- **Full name:** Inez B. MINTZER, Lynwood F. Mintzer, Jr., Miriam P. Myers, Paul Becotte, Nora Becotte, Margaret Harvey, Joseph Harvey, Moe Wiesenthal, Kathryn Wiesenthal v. ARTHUR L. WRIGHT & CO., Inc., a Corporation
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** February 17, 1959
- **Citations:** 263 F.2d 823; 1 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 638
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Goodrich
- **Judges:** Goodrich, McLaughlin
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6917379

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6917379. Public record. Not legal advice.