Hewit v. Berlin MacHine Works
194 U.S. 296
SCOTUS
1904
Check Treatment
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

If the trustee' had carried the case to the Circuit Court of Appеals on petition for supervision and revision under sec *300 tion 245 of the bankruptcy law, the case would have fallen within Holden v. Stratton, 191 U. S. 115, and the appeal tо this court would have failed. But he took it there by appeal, though accompanied by . some apparent effort to avail himself аlso of the other method. And as the Berlin Machine Works asserted'title to the property in the possession ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍of the trustee by an intervention raising a distinct and separable issue, the controversy may be treated as one of those “controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings” оver which the Circuit Court of Appeals could, under section 24a, exercise appellate jurisdiction as in other cases. Section 25a relates to appeals ■from judgments in certain enumerated steps in bankruptcy proceedings, in respect of which special prоvision therefor was required, Holden v. Stratton, sufra, while section 24a relates to controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings in the exercise by the bankruptсy courts of the jurisdiction, vested in them at law and in equity by section 2, to, settle the estates of bankrupts-and to determine controversies in relation thereto. Hutchinson v. Otis, 190 U. S, 552; Burleigh v. Foreman, 125 Fed. Rep. 217.

' The appeal to this court then followed under section ■ 6 of the act of March 3,1891.

This brings us to the consideration of. the case on the merits.' The material facts -are these-: October 10, 1900, Clara E. Kellogg contracted , with- the Berlin Machine Works for the purchase of twо wood working machines at the price of $1,850, payment to be made within four months from date of shipment, and title to the property ■ to. remain in thе * machine company until fully paid for. The machines ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍were" shipped to Kellogg, October 29 and November 16, respectively, and were received by her, set up in her planing mill, and put in Operation. October 29 and November 16 she signed and der livered to the machine company in payment for the machines two promissory notes, for $925 each, payable in two and four months, from their respective dates, to the order of the machine company, ^and éac& containing the. following clause: *301 “Title and right of possession of the property for which this note is given remains in the Berlin Machine Works until fully paid for.” Kellogg, on her voluntary .petition, was adjudicated a bankrupt, March 1, 1901, and a trustee was selected March 22, and thereafter duly qualified. The notеs have not been paid and were mentioned in the schedules as secured claims, the security being the machines in question. It also appеared that January 21, 1901, Clara E. Kellogg, being insolvent, executed a conveyance of the planing mill to a corporation called thе C. E. Kellogg Company, which being attacked as fraudulent, the property was voluntarily released to the trustee, all the capital stock оf the company, the entire consideration of the alleged transfer, being surrendered to the company.

This salo was a conditional sale and the title did not pass to the vendee because the condition was not fulfilled, Ballard v. Burgett, 40 N. Y. 314; Cole v. Mann, 62 N. Y. 1, unless the statutes of New York otherwise provided. The aрplicable statute is section 112 of chapter 418 of the Laws of 1897, which reads as follows:

“Conditions and reservations in contracts for sale of goods and chattels: Except as otherwise provided in this article, all conditions and reservations in a contract for the conditional sale of goods and chattels, accompanied by immediate delivery and continued possession of the thing contracted to be sold, to me effect that the ownership of such goods and chattels is to remain in the conditional vendor or ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍in a person other than the conditional vendee, until they are paid for, of until the occurrence of a future event or contingency, shall be void as against subsequent purchasers, pledgees or mortgagees in good faith, and as to them.the sale shall be deemed absolute, unless such contract of sale containing such conditions and-, reservations, or a true copy, thereof, be filed as directed in this article.”

It is admitted that the machine comрany did not cpmply with the statute until after the appointment and qualification *302 of the trustee, but if the trustee was not a subsequent purchaser, plеdgee or mortgagee in good faith, the omission to file the contract of sale was immaterial. Prentiss Tool & Supply Company v. Schirmer, 136 N. Y. 305.

Did the trustee occupy the position оf a subsequent purchaser, pledgee or mortgagee in good faith? We dismiss the .pretended' conveyance by Kellogg to the Kellogg Comрany from discussion as the District Court did, as it was attacked as fraudulent and without consideration, and was voluntarily released to the.trustee, who derived.no title thereby, and had none other than by operation of law.

. Section 70a of the bankruptcy law provides:

“The trustee, of the estate of a bankrupt, upon his appointment and quаlification, . . ., shall ... be vested by operation of. law with the title of the bankrupt, as of the date he was adjudged a bankrupt, ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍. . . to all . . . (5) property whiсh prior to the filing of the petition he could by any means have transferred or which-might have been levied upon and sold under judicial process against him.”

The District Court, Hazel, J., held that the reasonable construction of this provision was that. the.trustee was vested with the title which the bankrupt had to property situated as described, and not otherwise, and quoted from the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of In re New York Economical Printing Company, 110 Fed. Rep. 514, upholding that view, as follows: “The bankrupt act does not vest the trustee with any better right or title to the bankrupt’s property than belongs to the bankrupt or to his creditors at the time when the trustee’s title accrues. The present act, like all preceding bankrupt аcts,-"contemplates that a lien good at that time as against the debtor and as against all of his creditors shall remain undisturbed. If it is one which has befen obtained in contravention of some provision of the act, which is fraudulent as to creditors, or invalid as to creditors for want of reсord, it is invalid as to the .trustee.” And the Circuit Court of Appeals, adhering to that decision, *303 •held in this case that, inasmuch as by the New York statute .'a conditiоnal sale such as that in question was void only as against subsequent purchasers or pledgees or mortgagees in good faith, the District Court was right, and аffirmed the judgment. 118 Fed. Rep. 1017.

We concur in this view which is sústained by ‍​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍decisions under previous bankruptcy laws, Winsor v. McLellan, 2 Story, 492; Donaldson v. Farwell, 93 U. S. 631; Yeatman v. Savings Institution, 95 U. S. 764; and is not shaken by a different result in cases arising in States by whose laws conditional sales are void as against creditors.

In our opinion, these machines were not, prior to the filing .of the petition, property which, under the law of New York, might have been levied upon and sold under judicial process against the bankrupt; nor could she havе transferred it within the intent and meaning of section 70a. See Low v. Welch, 139 Massachusetts, 33. The company’s title was good as against the trustee, who could not claim as a subsequent purchaser in good faith.

Judgment affirmed,.