*1 juris- statute, Bankruptcy Washington had exclusive its 1969 of amendment, Washington date of diction the rents as of the deci- over and the reorganization petition former, filing construing are con- of sions appel- public policy trary of and that the to the law to all rents from that lee is entitled that state and void. not be- date. Inasmuch as the issue was court, opin- X JURISDICTION еxpress CHAPTER fore the lower we rental ion on the manner in which the agree appellee We applied by may income be used jurisdic Chapter X court has exclusive Trustеe. property un tion over debtor and its provisions judg- of 111 of the Bank der the Finding § error, we affirm the 511], ruptcy and that Act U.S.C. [11 § court. the lower jurisdiction, powers duties officers, in the court аnd its X, Chapter
consistent with are at regular great bankruptcy pro
as as in a
ceeding. Bankruptcy Act 114 of the § Moreover, 186 [11 U.S.C. [11 514]. § § Trustee, ap U.S.C. vested the § 586]
pellee herein, with title to the debtor’s regular
property, as a bank same ruptcy with title would vested trustee HOMES, a KINGSBERRY Division bankrupt’s property to the 70(a) under § Boise Cascade U. U.S.C. [11 110]. [11 § § Plaintiff-Appellee, granted appellee-trus S.C. § 587] rights reg powers the same as a tee Maurice E. COREY and Luke M. bankruptcy ular trustee would hаve had Defendants-Appellants. 75], collect U.S.C. [11 § § No. 71-1429. property of the estate. 257 of the § Bankruptcy pro Act 657] [11 U.S.C. Appeals, § United States Court of among vides, things, Seventh Circuit. right pоsses Trustee has a to immediate pos property sion of the debtor
session a trustee under a deed trust mortgagee mortgage. or a under a Circuit, First John Han Casey,
cock Life Mutual Ins. Co. (1st 1943), affirming F.2d 162 Cir. directing
the district court’s order by mortgagee
rent collected
turned over to the said: Trustee “. have no the district
[W]e doubt that power prop- court has such erty legis was in custodia the date filing petition.” [Empha- supplied.] agree.
sis
We
recent
Our
Security
decisions
Davis v.
National
Nevada,
(9th
Bank of
1971)
re
In-
Thomas Grosso
J.
vestment,
Cir.,
(9th
1972) although , factually point,
speak Chapter proceedings and, X
general, support our conclusion that
DUFFY, Judge. Senior Circuit appeal of an order of the granting plaintiff’s District Court mo- summary judgment against tion for a Corey defendants Maurice E. and Luke complaint. II of the Count M. (Rodney partner Francis was a third appeal and co-defendant herein). partner- in a
Defendants were ship building purpose for homes erecting pre-fabricated pack- home ages. The defendants custom- who were (Kingsberry) Kingsberry ers Homes desired, early 1967, to have an Kingsberry insisted status. Corey, Luke M. Maurice E. Hebble Rodney request execute a personal for credit clearance and submit sign personal financial statements and guarantee. The financial statements submitted showed a net worth. The re- substantial quest approved. The credit was by part- all three 9,1967. ners on March testimony The showed shipments that thereafter upon & Associates were made reliance credit of guarantors. the individual Sometime three operating who had been under Associates, of Hebble & decided to do business as name of Hebble & Inc. partnеrs former sole stockhold- corporation. and officers of the ers new Whitmire, Jr., Silvis, Ill., James E. No formal notice of the defendants-appellants. 16, given 1967 was Moline, Noe, Ill., plain Robert J. Furthermore, tiff. never tiff-appellee. (as provided was revoked or terminated DUFFY, Judge, by terms).1 guarantors, Before Circuit at Senior time, Kingsberry Judge, and GRANT* informed Judge. longer by District intended be bound * writing signed Chief District Robert A. Grant nated in and delivered to sitting Kingsberry Homes, the Northern District of Indiana Division of Boise Cas- by designation. by Corporation, acknowledged cade Kingsbеrry Homes, Division of Boise Cas- pertinent part: any 1. The reads in cade and even after sucli “Each of the revocation or termination sliall be and re- main effective as to all of Pur- outstanding; force and revoked or termi- .” chaser then agreement. See Phoe Shipments of such an obligation. to be terms Bogardus, Mfg. 528, nix & Associates. Co. McCasland (1907); On or about October O’Brien, Co., Green & package of value home built in the noted that Kingsberry $16,118.90 shipped considering, which we pay- Hebble & Associates. When *3 the was stated “Each of made, plain- home was not on this [guarantors] that this Summary guarantee. on the tiff sued guarantee and force against de- judgment the entered was in revoked or terminated appeal followed. fendants. This Kings- writing to and delivered it the in case that was is clear ” berry . Holmes. . . exchange to an the intent guarantors furnished in return a status to ob- credit and financial information respоnsibility. pledge individual They to do busi- tain credit. continued change the after That intention identical name aft- ness under an almost corporation months of a formation They accepted ship- incorporation. er transactions between Business later. question), (including the one ments corpora the the continued guarantee reaped the of the benefits just they prior tion was formed attempted liability when then to avoid t.2 developmen to that upon to their commitment. called honor signed by guarantee defendants invoking appropriate an case courts contract. Illinois was Illinois estoppel. the doctrine of held contracts of have of Illi- the of the decisions On basis thеm as to make must construed so be guarantees which construe nois courts done without where it can be enforceable liberally, the doctrine es- and because parties. the to the intent violence toppel applicable, the herein action is Powell, Castle v. 261 granting summary the trial court Manufacturing Company Scovill judgment plaintiff and is the must be Cassidy, Affirmed. (1916), changed corporation guarantor Court remained held (dissent- obligated promise. also on his Henry’s ing). Corporation Claude Southern 289, 300, Drive-In, Ill.App.2d Corey and Defendants (1964), 132, 133 where 201 N.E.2d partners doing as “Hebble discussing they first Associates” when agreement " stated it should be construed purchase in October of from fairly according to what is par A a third 1966.1 few presumed the under be to have been ty, Rodney Francis, firm, and standing parties.” 9, 1967, Corey, frequently
Illinois courts have invoked Francis executed ob ligations (here the doctrine of in situаtions of “Hebble & Associates Purchaser).” to avoid the inafter called by Corey Significant 2. is the fact A.20-22. An affidavit filed stand- opposition package ard de- to the motion оrder form the house Hebble summary judgment part: livered to for which did stated pay, indicated the order was from “At time told Plaintiff “Hebble and Associates.” No indication executed we wеre necessary simply incorporation that Rod- so was noted. Further- this was accept- ney more, be it is P. checks could evident from the order form Francis’ “open enjoyed the defendants ac- ed.” A.50. 30). (Appendix, page count” status. 1. Although court his name failure to holds defendants’ does Greene, document, revoke Merle or formal W. Managеr, Regional estops notice Sales witnessed them
tiff’s guarantee.3 denying liability. place execution of the I would making appears acquainted to have been well burdеn doc- sure that the proper with defendants’ Novem- umentation was in form on the business. On bargain. corporation ber side of the organized.4 Inc.” was Regional Since the of its In the “wintеr 1967” Greene knew Manager imputed plaintiff, Sales had been formed.5 With doing knew that it was a substantial vol- knowledge, his invoices ume of business with a cus- ap- Associates,” submitted to “Hebble and parently tomer. Since the “Inc.” without addition of pared by department, its own credit regularly paid corpo- Bills were *4 my judgment plaintiff charged checks, rate and no cоnceal inappli- with the that it was form of business purchases by corporation.11 cable to made.7 The total volume of business be- Since uncollectable receivable approxi- tween the amounted amounts to less than the custom- 3% mately $570,800.8 April In of 1969 credit', purchases, plaintiff’s er’s department I think employed work for charge should loss рlaintiff.9 guarantor, Francis, aas poor communication with sales de- its defendant, was named as a but has not partment. short, In since both appealed. good faith, to havе acted in I re- gard ordinary this as rather Quite clearly does not bring transaction which should not apply in terms equitable play. doctrine of into corporation.10 unreasonably, Not how- I would therefore ever, possibility of confu- view greater language plain effect than its sion between Associates” “Hebble and imports. Inc.,” until 3. A.27. executed. none 4. A.31. рarties contemplated the cor- poration would later be formed. 5. A.50. respect 6. At this is true with Moreover, plaintiff’s depart 1 1. since credit question. invoice See A.30. ignorеd its own which call rules periodic financial statements 7. A.50. customers, A.34-35, it. see inequitable does not seem to infer 8. A.28. the continued extension credit in was attributable more to the fact 9. A.26-28. bought paid had for over language 10. I base this conclusion on the a half a million dollars worth of mer itself, instrument as well the fact chandise than to the fact organized was not a 1967 in its files.