*1 application filed after the time limit has even expired it though be allowed.
The purpose limiting of statutes period appeal tois set a definite point litigation of time when shall end, at an unless within prescribed that time the appli- cation made; has been if not, it has pro- advise spective appellees they are freed appellant’s Any demands. other construction of the statute would defeat its purpose. Would-be appellants prolong could indefinitely appeal period, by making application to judge one within the three upon months and its denial by applying successively judges to other even after the prescribed time appeal had ended. Moreover, such cases period extension of the for appeal could be limited only by recourse to the applied doctrine laches particular circumstances of each case. appellants’
We conclude that applications for allow- appeals, ance of the after the expiration of three late, period, months were too this Court is jurisdiction appeals, without to entertain the which are accordingly
Dismissed. KELLEY et al. v. EVERGLADES DRAINAGE
DISTRICT.
No. 935. Decided June 1943. *2 Mr. was on the petitioners. Miller brief for W.alton Hall, John Sapp M. Lewis E. Messrs. D. Alfred respondent. McCall were on the brief for
417 Per Curiam. composi this case we are asked to review a respondent,
tion
a drainage
organ
debts of
district
ized under the laws of Florida. The courts below have
confirmed
(e)
Act,
§
under
83
the Bankruptcy
653, 658, 11
§
C.
(e),
amended, upon
Stat.
finding
Court, prerequisite
of the District
adop
tion
the plan,
it is “fair, equitable, and for the
best interests of the creditors and does not discriminate
unfairly in
any
favor of
creditor or class of creditors.”
Petitioners are holders of interest coupons, detached from bonds issued respondent, they on which have *3 judgments. According recovered in to recitals the plan composition, of the debtor’s bonds and the interest cou- designated pons, by the I plan indebtedness, as Class against charge “constitute a first taxes levied . . . against in lands the District, preference and have over Class II II Indebtedness”; the Class indebtedness, con- sisting of against various miscellaneous claims the Dis- trict, payable “is from an ad valorem of tax one mill . ., . does not constitute charge against a first any fixed District, revenues of the and is not secured by any lien pledge.” or Under plan the bondholders are to receive 56.918 in cents cash for each dollar of principal of amount; holders detached including interest coupons, coupons judgments which on have been recovered, are to cents, receive 36.77 and II holders of Class indebted- ness 26.14 cents. The plan is to be financed by a-loan* from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, evidenced secured the issuance it to of new bonds of the 4% District. here,
Petitioners they contend as did both courts below, unfairly discriminates favor of II Class creditors. But we are unable to reach that
418 agree
question petitioners since we with the record lacks the of fact which the the Gen- statute and in Bankruptcy require, eral Orders and which are neces- sary question. to the determination of that (e) requires
Section 83 of the Act that “At the conclu- hearing, judge sion of the shall make written findings of fact and his conclusions of law thereon.” And Rule (a) Procedure, applicable Rules of Civil made to bankruptcy in Bankruptcy cases General Order No. 37, requires the court “find the In specially.” facts DuBois, Consolidated Rock Products Co. 510, v. 520-525, this Court held that absence of subject to the of payment value assets respective claims of bondholders, each class of the courts were in no exercise the position “informed, independent judgment” discharge necessary to the of their statutory duty to determine the fairness of a corporate reor- ganization under the old 77B of Bankruptcy § Act. Ecker Western Corp., v. R. 448, 318 U. S. Pacific Group Institutional Chicago, M., Investors v. St. P. & Co., P. R. 318 U. S. we held the requirement of ade- quate findings applicable to railroad reorganizations under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act.
It applies with no less force cases of municipal bank- ruptcy. And, as stated the Consolidated Rock Products case, supra, the fact that only very *4 a small minority of objected have plan creditors to the does not reheve the duty courts of the of appraising its fairness, and of making the findings necessary support such an appraisal. As Chicago, we said in Milwaukee, the St. Paul & Pacific p. 571, case, the minorities under reorganization various of the Bankruptcy sections Act “cannot deprived be of the of benefits the statute by reason of a waiver, acquiescence approval by or the other members of the class.” The ap- plicability of that rule to proceedings under Ch. IX is plain. in We stated American Ins. Co. Park, v. Avon 138, majority the of “the fact that vast secu- rity may approved have a is not the test holders of whether statutory satisfies standard. They The former is not a substitute for the are latter. independent.” degree findings
The nature and of re exactness of the quired particular on the of depends circumstances Milwaukee, Chicago, case. the Western Pacific Paul & cases, pointed St. we out that cases of Pacific making railroad of basic evi reorganization, duty dentiary findings require does not a determination terms of sub dollars and cents of the of the assets value suffi ject respective liens. held that it was We if cient forth conclusion report Commission’s set its reorganized prospective earning power as to the of fu road, findings apportionment with its supporting earnings ture so as among creditors and stockholders together their with reasons preserve priorities, relative for data. Once supporting its conclusions and essential priority determined, of liens has been considered es earning timates of future basis power afford a substantial As lienors. appraising respective interests of the reor prophecy, such estimates involve an element of ganization liqui which cannot be properties readily requires adjustments, rather “practical dated resort rigid than a Rock Products Co. v. formula,” Consolidated DuBois, findings supra, 529. Hence we concluded dis reorganized railroad earnings the future tributable to each holders security class of and creditors adequate were an of asset value substitute dis which we held cents, terms dollars could pensed affording appear with as no more than a delusive subject ance of a which the matter did not certainty warrant. demanded
Delusive exactness of is likewise not future municipal bankruptcy. cases of But where *5 420
tax revenues are only source to which can creditors look payment claims, of their considered estimates those only revenues constitute the ap- available basis for praising the respective interests of different classes of creditors. order that a may court fair- determine the ness of the total amount of cash or securities offered to creditors the plan, the court must have it data before which will permit a reasonable, and hence an informed, estimate of the probable future revenues available for the satisfaction of creditors.
And where, as here, different classes of assert creditors prior claims to different sources of revenue, there must be a determination of the extent which each class is en- titled to particular source, share a and of the fairness of the allotment to each light probable class revenues to anticipated be from each support source. To such determinations, findings, there must be such de- tail and permits, exactness as the nature of the case subsidiary on which facts the ultimate conclusion of fair- rationally ness can predicated. findings
The present case fall that re- short quirement.1 might Appropriate facts which have been
1 master, adopted pro The whose were forma the District Court, approved proposed plan, the classification of debts made as to the amount of indebtedness class. He of each sub stantially paraphrased the recitals of the as to the sources to which class payment, each of creditors could look and found that acreage tax, out of which I payable, Class debts were was “the main source of revenue of the District.” He stated: objecting position
“Some of the creditors have taken Composition, amended, provides Plan of acreage for the use of purposes tax funds for payment other than the of bonds and interest coupons, might impression get and one simply reading from iso parts but, taking Plan, whole, lated provide.” it as a it does not so And, in answer to the contention that violated the so-called (see priority” Angeles “rule of absolute Co., v. Los Case Lumber 106), he said: *6 opin- in referred to the nowhere considered, but which are in which have the revenues findings below, or are ions taxation, of the each the been received from source past each subject tax, to present property assessed value of the effect currently prescribed, probable the tax rates in the tax structure on future revenues of a revision delinquencies, in extent tax adopted past the of the District which any general economic conditions of the of may reasonably percentage to affect expected adequate evidence may It be that delinquencies. future On that we in the record. present these matters is as to to search not the function of this Court for it is pass, do not supply the order to analyze evidence the record and might indicate, but a careful so reading of the Plan superficial “A loan, conditions the the Plan, provisions the analysis entire of application the debts, practical of and a payment classes of of of two theory..” against question such debts, that resolves Plan the District to findings by master relative only two made the the These were or to the amount of rights of creditors inter se the two classes of further of the debt. Without likely for service to be available revenues that: “The Pro- the master concluded findings matters on these vital equitable the amended, fair, and for Composition, is posed Plan of unfairly in favor and does not discriminate interests of the creditors best any class of creditors.” creditor or findings Appeals master’s as to the clarified the The Circuit Court of stating expressly that the rights by respective of each class of creditors charge receipts on the from the ad was a first indebtedness Class II might pointed out that in order that the District It valorem tax. extinguish existing borrowing power all it must its maximum exercise acreage taxes, and against and ad valorem claims taxing possible all re- had been revised so as to make tax structure issued the Recon- payment of the new bonds available for sources Corporation. it concluded without From this further struction Finance payment on the dollar to “Provision for discussion 26.14^ fully facts, discharge was and was Class II debts authorized discriminatory.” inequitable, unfair, or not findings opinions present any below dis- Beyond or this none of respective relating the fairness of the treatment of facts cussion plan. accorded the classes creditors two .of findings which the trial court to make. Nor do we failed made all the enumer- intimate that must be on others; need be made on no the nature of ated matters or sup- sufficient evidentiary appropriate unfairness is for decision as to fairness or port the court’s determine the first instance the trial court to case. particular We light of the circumstances findings, must be stated either only that there hold sufficient to indi- which are opinion separately, or court’s for the ultimate conclusion. basis cate the factual *7 that de- proper record is such a of the the state Since by petitioners’ of law raised questions termination II the treatment of Class creditors can- as to contentions findings, peti- suitable the made in absence of not be the judgment the is granted, certiorari is tion for writ of to the the cause remanded District Court vacated, and with conformity opinion. action this appropriate
So ordered. Black, dissenting: Mr. Justice agree summarily I cannot that this case should be June, 1941, appli- remanded. District filed an composition of its debts. petitioners cation for The here dismiss, a motion to which was They filed overruled. Circuit appealed Appeals, making Court of con- which that tentions court found to be “technical Kelley Everglades District, Drainage extreme.” v. 127 F. 2d 808, 809. When the case came back before the Cir- Appeals cuit Court of the instant proceedings, that court found from the entire record that these petitioners and extremely had “unfounded technical contentions ,. sought plan.” 744, . . to obstruct 132 F. 2d 745. delay
Reversal more means still further in bringing much undoubtedly about what is a needed reorganization. financial I am certain While findings in different and their below could couch courts they could set I no means sure words, more am the evi- their conclusion greater clarity out with been to have of bondholders groups dence shows both The decision of treatment. equitable fair and accorded appre- full made with was Appeals Court of Circuit issues, the evi- full consideration ciation and after findings. these cir- Under dence, and the District Court’s certiorari, but since deny I cumstances, prefer should I review, think we not grant has should Court determined giving parties oppor- first an of the case without dispose I see the record as now issues. On tunity argue and the con- abundantly adequate, findings were it, the correct. Appeals was the Circuit Court of clusion of STATES. v. UNITED STEPHAN 1, 1943. No. —. Decided June *8 E. McCabe were James Salowich and Nicholas Messrs. the applicant. on the brief Fahy on the brief for the United was
Solicitor General States.