for the wrongful termination of such letters. We hold, contrary to the bankruptcy court’s conclusion, that FDIC-receiver did raise a “substantial meritorious” defense to its liability on the letters of credit. It defended on grounds that no contract relationship existed between F & T Contractors and the Northern Ohio Bank from which contractual liability for terminating the letters could be based and that the only connection F & T Contractors had to the letters of credit was that it had acted as a cosigner on the mortgage notes that secured them. We therefore conclude that jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court cannot be based on possession of F & T Contractors’ chose in action on the letters of credit. See In Matter of Marine Distributors, Inc., supra, 522 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). As an alternative basis for asserting
holding in a similar factual situation that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction because it had no actual or constructive possession of the letters of credit involved holding trial court and appellate court erred in requiring defendant to show he had meritorious defense when record established that defendant had filed answer but had no actual or constructive notice of trial setting recognizing theory of constructive possession holding that k no wing possession can be demonstrated by proof of either actual or constructive possession holding that the phrase possession or custody in  5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession