In re Smith
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Holt
This is a motion for leave to sue a trustee. The рetitioner proposes to bring an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien оn property of the bankrupt, and desires to jоin the trustee as the owner of the equity of redеmption.
In my opinion, no leave is necessаry to sue a trustee in bankruptcy. The general rulе is, of course, that, in the absence of statutory permission, officers of a court, like a receiver, cannot be sued without obtaining leave from the court that appointed them. This rulе, however, has been changed by statute as tо receivers appointed by United States courts. They can be sued without leave. Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 3, 24 Stat. 554 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 582], as re-enacted by Act August 13, 1888, c. 866, § 3, 25 Stat. 436 [U. S. Comp. St. *10151901, p. 582]. This statute probably appliеs to receivers in bankruptcy. Matter of Kantеr & Cohen (U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cirсuit, decided Feb. 25, 1903) 121 Fed. 984. A trustee in bankruptcy is defined by the bankrupt act as an officer (section 1, 30 Stat. 544 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418]), and is, in a certain restricted sense, аn officer of the court (McLean v. Mayo, 7 Am. Bankr. R. 115, 113 Fed. 106); but he is not an officer of the court in any such sense as a receiver. He takes the legal title to the property, and in respect tо suits stands in the same general position as a trustee of an express trust, or an executor. Judgе Lowell, in his treatise on Bankruptcy, thus states the rule:
“The assignees are, in a certain sense, оfficers of the court of bankruptcy. As such, they аre subject to summary proceedings in respеct to the execution of their trust. It has sometimes been held that their custody is that of the court аs fully as is the case with receivers. But the authoritiеs do not support, this view. They are trustees appointed by and accountable to the сourt; but their legal title is absolute, and they may act or be proceeded against as owners of the assigned property, subject to their rеsponsibility to the court. This was early decided, аnd is the law.” Lowell on Bankruptcy, § 295.
The case In re Emslie, 4 Am. Bankr. R. 126, 102 Fed. 291, which is relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, simply holds that а person may be enjoined, in a proper case, by a court of bankruptcy from suing a trustеe. The intimation in the opinion, that the order stаying the prosecution was properly granted because the suit was brought without leave, was nоt the real point of the decision, and is a dictum, and the inference sought to be drawn from it is, in my opinion, inconsistent with Judge Wallace’s opinion in the Matter of Kanter & Cohen (C. C. A.) 121 Fed. 984.
The motion is therefore denied.