Beauchamp

Beauchamp v. United States

Good Law
76 F.2d 663·1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 2639
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 8, 1935No. 7669California3,506 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garrecht, J.

Appellant herein for many years was engaged in conducting a general insurance business, principally in the city of Long Beach, Cal. By his individual efforts he had built up a large and, for a time, lucrative business. In 1932 he caused to be organized a corporation under the name of C. D. Beauchamp & Co., of which he owned all the shares except such as were necessary for other directors to qualify. Said *664 Corporation became the successor of, and continued to conduct, the said insurance business; appellant being in complete control thereof. On account of his illness, the business became involved in financial difficulties; a voluntary petition in bankruptcy was filed; and on July 1, 1932, the said corporation was duly adjudged a bankrupt and the matter referred to Rupert B. Turn-bull, "referee in bankruptcy, at Los Angeles, Cal., for administration, and one Ernest U. Schroeter was appointed receiver in bankruptcy.- On July 7, 1932, said receiver filed with said referee a petition for ah order to show cause for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction, in which, among other things, it was alleged that in the assets of the said bankrupt corporation were certain…

Concurring Opinion

Wilbur, J.

I concur in the reversal solely upon the ground that the appellant was not enjoined from transacting insurance business on his own account, and that it is not alleged or claimed that he has aided or abetted his sons, who were enjoined from conducting án insurance business, in so doing. I also agree that the injunction was erroneously granted, but such error is not a defense to a charge of contempt for violating the order. The remedy is by an appeal from the order granting the injunction. The court issuing the injunction had jurisdiction over the parties enjoined and over the subject-matter, and the order was not void. See Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff (C. C. A.) 42 F.(2d) 832 ; Trickett v. Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 851, 858 ; Brougham v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. (C. C. A.) 205 F. 857 ; S. F. Myers Co. v. Tuttle (C. C.) 188 F. 532 ; E. Edel-man & Co. v. Fredericks Armature Mfg. Co. (D. C. Pa.) 3 F. Supp. 973 ; Remington on Bankruptcy, § 2619.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.