Seiden v. Southland Chenilles', Inc.

899 trаnsportation value prosecution evi wheat of circumstantial relied jury’s $5,000 Consistency in a proved by or more. Conspiracies seldom dence. are said in necessary, as was con verdict is not direct and convictions evidence 393, circumstances, States, 390, 284 U.S. Dunn United spiracy upheld if the will 356, 189, “Each to 52 76 L.Ed. parties are sufficient S.Ct. acts and conduct of States, as regarded count in an indictment establish United them. Carlson v. we have Cir., separate 341 As denied was a indictment.” 10 F.2d certiorari 187 1367; stated, evi there sufficient U.S. 71 S.Ct. 95 heretofore Cir., wheat States, finding 168 F.2d that the Young 10 dence to sustain the v. United Cir., 242; States, felonious 106 obtained United 10 which was stolen or Reavis v. Cir., States, 982; transported interstate was of fraud and F.2d v. United Wilder States, $5,000. 177; This case United the value of more than F.2d Martin v. Cir., 306 U. had tried though F.2d denied been certiorari us as before conspiracy only L.Ed. 1048. count. United S. on the 59 S.Ct. Dotterweich, 64 S. States Considering the evidence 134,88 L.Ed. 48. Ct. which whole the inferences judgments affirmed. reasonably therefrom most favor drawn required prosecution, as we are able States, appeal, v United to do on Carlson

supra, there sufficient evidence we think only jury’s finding to sustain the conspiracy, but that

there was an unlawful $5,000was than value more

wheat of transported defendants interstate or ob it had stolen who knew that SOUTHLAND et al. SEIDEN defendants by felonious fraud. The tained CHENILLES’, Inc. transport large together traveling with No. 13758. compаratively small appeared trucks Appeals Court United States only two em operated by country elevator Fifth Circuit. period of about ployees, there within a 22, 1952. March name, pur days, under a fictitious six only wheat fill 24 trucks chased sufficient disposing of the In full. about one-half period the defendants within this

wheat trips small to another round made five Oklahoma, which was more than

town they sold from away, where

150 miles much wheat of almost twice as trucks

same purchased, at a grade as that ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‍the same substantially cоst. Under

price below presented here the the circumstances to infer that the wheat right

jury had the flowing into trucks was seen than one lead spouts, grain other

from weighing purchased ing the scales

wheat, or obtained being stolen was and constituted the short fraud

felonious the elevators at Sublette

age shown $5,000. Judge, Russell, Circuit far in excess had a value dissented. contend that the fail

Defendants convict on the substan jury to

ure finding to a amounts there count tive evidence of interstate insufficient

HOLMES, Judge. par appellants are interested ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‍ties, intervene рermitted should case, regardless in this whether the wid validly support year ow’s for one has Undoubtedly the set aside to her or not. under is entitled to widow Tennessee, Georgia or of either laws any provided left the deceased husband which, proceeds of property out of or the which, may it set aside to her. be If bankruptcy proceeding intervention of a prevents appropriate action the state bank having jurisdiction, court then the ruptcy equitable ju which exercises risdiction, act, should and do that ought to have been done. be unconscionable for a court

It would of the hus- death band, possession to take all his assets exempt setting without his aside it, entitled allowing those and without year’s support, the widow a in accordance If with state law. a decedent noth- leaves corporate any ing stock, but and it has value, may her, the stock set may proрer it and a be sold made allowance proceeds. out of the Equity never by halves, things does and neither does bankruptcy. adjudication bankrupt- An cy a prop- is caveat to the world that the erty bankrupt of the ju- bankruptcy court, risdiction of the hear will the claims of all interested par- ties, lien including though creditors valid by bankruptcy. liens not affected Mul- Nugent, ler U.S. S.Ct. 405. Moreover, duty it is the of the bankruptcy court, motion, itsof own to look into its question whenever the is raised and the regards se as a allegations rious one. If the petition of the true, to intervene are pretended election directors, officers and follow Gleason, Frank Rossville, Ga., M. ap- for ing the death of the decedent, was shama pellants. fraud, which adjudication vitiate the Pittman, R. Carter Dalton, Ga., Sam J. bankruptcy. The petition alleges that the McAllester, Jr., Chattanooga, Tenn., Walt- corporation insolvent; is not has as Shaw, LaFayette, er B. Ga., appellee. for sets excess illegal of its liabilities if the HOLMES, Before cancelled; BORAH, RUS- claims are and that volun SELL, Judges. tary petition was not the act apart much corporation, supported impartially, but was act shall set so moneys purported stock, crop, provisions, board of direc- resolution fraudulently assets, tors due, obtained. on hand or other necessary of such fоr many legal There are sound family ex- until the and her equitable court’s reasons for piration year of one after decease allowing widow a out of of her husband.” husband, but estate of deceased moneys Section ef- “The 8232: one, statutory perhaps the is a federal best apart fects so set shall be absolute right in which establishes the widow’s bank uses, property of the widow said allowance, ruptcy ac to this humane shall into and not be taken the account statutes, exemption cordance state with' of administration the estate precedent without It any state-court order. pre- intestate, upon any said nor seized law, law, by is the state federal reinforced cept or execution.” not the order of that furnishes a state authority by allowance the bank for the following The decisions are under state ruptcy 11 24. The court. U.S.C.A. Hyder Hyder, 16 Tenn. § above statutes: v. right; federal stat statute 235, “Property creates 64, App. 66 243: S.W.2d requires bankruptcy ute authorizes and apart year’s support set for the is adjudica claim. court to allow subject wise the debts the deceased.” to After tion, acquire jurisdic a state cannot 623, 136 Fuller, Tenn.App. Redmon 23 v. bankruptcy tion of ,724, the res without 725, statutory al 726: The S.W.2d court. bankruptcy consent of the year’s support lowance for decedent’s irrespective is widow madе of condition Edition, Bankruptcy, Collier 14th Vol. on solvency insolvency. his estate as to or 1767, 3, 63.03, page says: “The broad Sec. Moore, 528, v. S. Crenshaw 124 Tenn. 137 bankruptcy equity powers courts vested in L.R.A.,N.S., 924, The W. 34 1161: statutes permit proof to the admission al support year’s widow a to the setting aside principles based on lowance of claims exemption as statutes. are to be construed equity of claims and also the disallowance summary equitable a grounds.” For on law, 113, see Ga. As Title bankruptcy, see equity powers of courts of 1002, for provides Code Ann. Sec. 295, 304, Litton, 60 Pepper S. support minor year’s or one widow 238, Winkle, 281. In re Van 84 Ct. any person tes- children death of 711, 714, D.C., F.Supp. the court 49 intestate, an leaving tate or estate solvent recognized in “Equitable liens said: Kelley, insolvent. McDaniel v. 61 Ga. bankruptcy proceedings as well common right 5 672: a App. S.E.2d Wall, statutory re liens liens.” In law in a minor yeаr’s vests widow and “land D.C., 60 the court said: F.2d children, any, immediately upon if the death on equity goods claim tenant’s on lord has Mashburn, the husband. Mashburn v. right to distrain is premises where defeated Ga.App. Right 13 S.E.2d 190: Turner, D.C., 9 F. In re by execution.” year’s support a to a is widow decedent equitable claim for rent was Supp. an right, jealous “vested” and the courts are (7), 104, sub. priority under b given Sec. any attempt upon it. House encroach 11 U.S.C.A. Title House, Un- 13 S.E.2d 817: Ga. setting law on toAs the Tennessee express statutory provision, the.claim der widow, for a Williams’ family a first decedent’s for ranks provides: estate, Code superior Tennessee his and is all against except “Upon application against decedent’s real estate 8231: claims Section intestate, purchase-money mortgage. a In lien of of the widow arising Dicks, D.C., 293 (a 198 F. case dissents from her hus- re who that, county ap- Georgia), district court held will, court shall band’s bankrupt the title of cast on the freeholders, unconnected since three point bankruptcy is law an absolute consanguinity trustee not either with her debts, one, pay distribution sworn to but who, being duly first affinity, rupt, generally priority rank and de- aside to the of which this stock could be set state, a year’s support; termined law of the since widow for but bankrupt adjudication, (fraudu- shortly corporation his died after is in deprive there, and lently the widow solvent un- you pleasе, did right minor against children their to a less the merits are to decided support. hearing), decision was affirmed is claimed This the widow without a Hull Dicks, party, interested S.Ct. widow not an U.S. 59 L.Ed. 372. and should not to intervene and be allowed al- the fraud. This disclose is contended True, it is the that is though solvent the stockholders of cor- bankruptcy, not the deceased 'husband equitable poration are the owners all its petitioner; but of his time death property, only to crеdi- ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‍corporation, husband owned stock in tors. alleged bankrupt; which is the hus and the band’s estate now owns stock of Therefore, although the husband possessed. he died seized and It also are, not in of his assets true that the stockholders acquire jurisdiction no state court can equitable are the property owners of the of requires doing of them. The law never the corporation, subject rights a credi to of the thing, proceed idle оf an what a hard Therefore, corporation tors. is unless the ing bankruptcy it -be a to would for court insolvent, the husband at the time of his physical corpora the distribute of assets a equitable corporate death was the owner of tion, parties, hearing without be interested upon pre which assets his widow a has probate cause some court not set aside had year’s support ferred claim a for under the them speedily tо a that was stock certificate Georgia, substantive law Tennessee of or being rendered worthless omniverous the dependent upon the particular of facts this jurisdiction of bankruptcy: jurisdiction a case. Yet it is said she that should not which, attachment, upon adjudication, is an bankruptcy, even be in a of heard court injunction, and caveat to the that world is equity, which also a court prove of to in bankruptcy, trustee the the of dаte that the is insolvent but has not filing petition the vested is fraudulently been adjudged 'caused to a be with title all of the bankrupt’s property, to bankrupt. is saying This tantamount to equitable, tangible legal and intangible, claim, legal a prior that entitled to throughout the May United States. state a ity law, may under state not asserted year’s support prop court out set a equitable against assets in court of bank erty not within its actual or constructive equitablе ruptcy, which exercises jurisdic jurisdiction? There would nourish be no tion. ment in an such order it A did. stock merely property certificate is evidence Since the husband at the of his time action; rights, or choses and all such Tennessee, death resident of was a there rights of with decedent reference to the disagreement no among the members this property of this are invalidity present pur as to the for court jurisdiction to sole and exclusive poses probate proceedings of the state ain bankruptcy circumstances, court. In tírese Georgia. We also court concur equity a court of will pierce the opinion that the substantive of the veil, and state with administer the law even governed by for a justice. handed disagree laws of Tennessee. What we power is the bankruptcy about court Our decree not limited lawyer’s petition, only by justice make the allowance the basis of but under to. prior every litigant. law without state-court order law for In state Securities Com shows, Realty subject. Co., So Improvement as the mission U. & on the far record S. probate have been no proceedings there 60 S.Ct. Tennessee, and the husband left no estate the court said: “And has all the except long practice bankruptcy stock cor been the one-half in this courts permit If poration. the husband were the bank- сreditors to or not others to entitled pleadings, bankruptcy the al- circumstances file or otherwise contest such legations petition va- appellants’ claim of a to move lacks to allow unsupported authority adjudication by any cation of dismissal would or the petition strictly grounds, of a on that attention. brought whether been to has our proceeding irrespective jurisdictional not, or This is Section 8 proceed.” ought Bankruptcy not to he allowed to Act of 11 U.S.C.A. § insanity reference to the death or has property belonging If fund or that, bankrupt, but which indicates come estate has come or shall decedent’s exempt already property if the has custody into de spouse set aside or awarded support may be course no allowance for children, exemption pendent right but proceeding; widow in this made preserved shall in bank nevertheless be corporate as- if in final distribution of ruptcy. the trustee possession sets there is in any money property to the de- belonging bankruptcy need The trustee in estate, allowance under cedent’s the widow’s proceedings, the action probate not await may be Tennessee substantive law of be in which have not been and never court as set aside to stituted; a bill in na nor must he file exempt be- property. claim The widow’s intеrpleader court to ture of in some other husband, upon the death came vested dispose legal custody res in only upon property but can be enforced ordinary appointed Only him. court that belonged proceeds prudence, diligence, required care, time his death. to her husband notify of the trustee claimants of contingent nothing There is uncertain or fund, R.C.L., page ill authorities except the her claim existence аbout cited; the determine may and court below property allow it. There out which to The the time and manner of notice. bank may something coming to husband’s the ruptcy will with the court not interfere property corpora- the estate from this estate, except the settlement of to aid tion, enough to allow that reason and probate matter jurisdiction of a a court in protect contingent in- to intervene and inadequate, Hagan powers where its are cf. may such manner she be ad- terest in Walker, How., U.S., 29, 14 14 L.Ed. vised. 155-157; Am.Jur., 174, pp. 19 but no Sec. probate proceedings are the pending in bankruptcy any stage of At the residence, state of decedent’s none is and in the if the itself proceeding, court finds possible necessary even under the ad property belong legal custody of funds or proceedings, To warrant mitted facts. such bankrupt cor ing to the the stockhоlders of be an estate administer with there must to power, no it has inherent after poration, jurisdiction the of the in court. Where stockholders tice to all creditors said equitable interposition ground is estab adjudicate parties, to and other interested lished, equity court of a will in innumerable of, validity of rightful and the the owners jurisdiction take controversies instances ju property. The against, claims said estates involving decedents’ and the exclusive; to do this is sole and risdiction City Morgan of creditors. & Town of rem; and is a one proceeding classic the 203; Wall., U.S., 613, Beloit, 19 L.Ed. 7 probate court court, not even a other no U.S., 173, States, Pet., 5 Hunter v. United resided, decedent where the in the state 86. See Annotation: 12 8 L.Ed. subsequent the bank may acquire time of R.C.L., pp. seq. 1035. See also 64 et refer jurisdiction with ruptcy concurrent a Finally, property whenever is in property without the con same enсe this possession it bankruptcy latter be court of sent juris de is an inherent incident of creditors of the court’s where ing a court appear heard diction to determine the owner owners may and ceased husband possession accordingly. Cf. For claim. and deliver to the widow’s reference with procedure customary Dicks, receivership 35 S.Ct. Hull cases, that the court property A statement a has taken in- 372. 59 L.Ed. matter, in the dismissed had no Corpus Juris, p. and interest possession, to its see appeal As C.J.S., This followed. ; Re- intervention. 392, 393, Sections by coun- plainly freely conceded and stated with equity If thus ceivers, 271. deal § question receivers, appellants, only sel for “the possession of property in the its presented by appeal is whether this reason the equal greater even with and one- her minor owned Mrs. Seiden and son ample bankruptcy powers court of the Chenille’s, half of the stock Southland custody with a trust fund in the deal Inc., by judgment the Walk- virtue of appointed by it. an officer Ordinary setting er Court [iCounty] reversed, appealed from is judgment year’s support.” apart to them aas the cause to the district remanded not inconsistent proceedings for further is, course, It well established opinion. ordered that It is also with this year’s “is a favorite ref- all further distribution of funds special law”.1 anomaly It “an pro- and trustee thesе eree legislation juris- favorite of [Georgia] * * * stayed appellants’ ceedings be until prudence statute branch of the adjudicated. finally claim is Sosebee, 169 Grant v. distributions”. 658, 661, 336, 338, and cita- Ga. 151 S.E. RUSSELL, Judge (dissenting). Nevertheless, aside tions. be set must out of husband. the estate of the deceased Claiming to be the owners one-half not, not, estate within This and was Chenille’s, corporate stock of Southland It of the Court. corporation Inc., a of Walker County, adjudication sought Georgia, appellants sought to intervene in a bankrupt course, this, as a is an en- voluntary bankruptcy proceeding had tirely different matter from estate corporation, allegedly been instituted corpora- Only a deceased stockholder. stockholder, other the instance of the tion was before the Court. Doubtless who one-half remaining owned of the futility, did recognition of its purpose corporate stock. The in- not seek a from the assets adjudication to set tervention was corporation. sought She use the bankrupt as a acquired to have been claimed ground proper authority had through evidencing her husband’s estate as ground existed, given, or filing for the interested person, a stock- as petition bankruptcy. Appellants’ the holder, adjudica- to set move aside the ownership predicated of stock claim was bаnkrupt. tion of the as a Con- upon judgment the Court Ordi- sequently, necessity there is for deter- no nary County, Georgia, of Walker mining proper procedure the followed to be appellants corporate awarded to the stock where a is sought from ownership their deceased husband and being decedent’s which is adminis- estate year’s Seiden, support. as a father Mrs. by bankruptcy. a court tered son, husband, lifetime, and her in his were all residents and citizens of then, Tennessee. Turning, validity judg- to the the grounds, Among other the Ordinary, Georgia ment Court upon moved to dismiss the intervention the upon ap- claim of which the interest ground judgment of the Court based, question pellant the controlling Ordinary County, Georgia of Walker corporate was whether the stock interest of because the void situs of the stock inwas the deceased Tennessee stockholder was the State of Tennessee and thе subject within Georgia jurisdiction of the Georgia Court. probate proceeding court in the instituted approved judge contention, trial this by de- minor and son of stock- widow such judgment termined the awarding year’s holder, themselves also residents Ten- void, support and, since, consequently, the Non-residence pre- nessee. alone does not proposed year’s were support intervenors not stockholders vent the award City 672,180 604, 605,108 Co.,

1. Backer v. Bank & Trust 180 Ga. S.E. A.L.R. 769. Geоrgia Georgia Court the deceased leaves Court to set aside property ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‍Georgia. located- year’s resident of support Tennessee a Jones Cooner, How- property 82 S.E. 445. legal Ga. having a in Tennessee situs ever, provisions under the of an Act the belonging to the estate of a Ten- deceased Acts, Georgia Legislature Georgia nessee upon resident. being It conceded p. 866, Supp.Code of Sec. 113- hearing that these circumstances exist- 1002,1, appraisers provided ed, judgment appellants which the carry essential to out the determination relied patently juris- void for lack of of, which, year’s amount or from diction in the Court Ordinary and shall be set aside under vir- trial Court not err did in so It holding. Georgia tue Section 113-1002 of the follows that attempted intervenors Code of 1933 “shall be residents failed to establish that they were stockhold- county where the corporation. administration of es- ers in the neither then They or, tate pending; claimed, no deceased rely nor upon, now any other basis administration, then county from the where of interest proceeding, resided deceased of his the time trial Court did not dismissing err in appraisers power death.” Such shall have tile intervention. to set prop- aside a “either in

erty or money, from property

deceased whether county located in the or

their appointment county in any other of the State of Georgia”. 85-d701 Sectiоn Code of defines stock personalty. The Georgia authorities

recognize general rule that “Personal property has locality other than that of v. NATIONAL LABOR RABOUIN RELA person having the possession, BOARD. same in TIONS ownership, custody control”, Clark v. No. Docket 22063. Baker, 65, 77, 750, 758, 186 Ga. 196 S.E. Appeals United States Court of “subject and is law that governs Second Circuit. the.person of owner, respect both with Argued Jan. 1952. disposition transmission, to its either party.” succession the act of the Thom- 24, 1952. March Decided Morrisett, as v. 76 Ga. 384. See also Grote 231; Pace, Squire Vazquez, 71 Ga. Ga.App. 127; 183 S.E. Fenn v. Caste- lanna, Ga. S.E.2d 796. It seems clear from these authorities that the Geor-

gia law establishes the situs of owner,

stock as the domicile of the and ac-

cordingly, there was no

non-resident decedent within the State of purpose

its 'Courts setting same the widow the minor child year’s support. appraisers pur-

ported authority act under of the Court Ordinary ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‍County, of Walker Georgia, county

were not residents either Hand, Judge, L. dissented. administration where of the estate of pending, county deceased deceased resided at the time of There no known his death. provision in

Georgia law which would authorize the

Case Details

Case Name: Seiden v. Southland Chenilles', Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 22, 1952

Citation: 195 F.2d 899

Docket Number: 13758_1

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.