Wheeling Structural Steel Co. v. Moss

CO. v. STEEL STRUCTURAL WHEELING cases). (two MOSS Nos. Appeals, Circuit. Fourth Court of

Circuit 2, 1932. Dec. Wright Wheeling, Hugus, Va., W.

appellant. Bumott, Louis, (Henry Robert St. Mo. City, Stern, Mo., H. Jefferson B. L. Liberman, Mo., Louis, of St. on the brief), appellee. SOPER, NORTHCOTT and Cir- Before Judges, CHESNUT, cuit Judge. SOPER, Judge. Wheeling Structural Steel Company, a corporation Virginia, of West in the bankruptcy ceedings E. Joel a citizen state, praying that an order bo di- entered recting trustee in it a balance of cash maining hands after of all the proceed- oil and costs thereafter, ing. Shortly filed a praying that the trustee be ordered aforesaid him. The- price purchaser the sufficient to trustee, having come at a been of these conflict notified creditors, including it- ing pay in cash already all claims, had self, full; company report receipts steel his and disbursements and of controversy all assets ex- should retain as its hear the evidence own! and cept agreements those under the petitioners, proceed and case allotted by Moss, interpleader if and latter be held that the should between them were an ed by referee, company period allowed equity. hearing, or until the The steel bank- company the statute for the claims in steel of dered that the of expired, power, how- denied, should with pay and the trustee any part sell it- of them to-reimburse plus ever, The District in his hands to Moss. might review, of self for amounts Judge, upon order approved the pay creditors and company scheduled referee, appealed, the trustee and the steel costs, pay if these amounts Moss should not by thirty days expiration court, of the within also under and period. §§ National U. S. G. (b), (a). (a), 11 USCA §§ petitioned The trustee court for or- sale, public der and formerly of the court ordered a president had Moss by assets, all sale of the saleable manager of general of steel vision that creditor who become part, which should certain actions on reason of might defalcation, corpo successful bidder use his claim- as .apparently included part purchase price provided there largest creditor. He became ration listing should be sufficient cash in the hands voluntary trustee’s pay all creditors in the costs $286,148.16, the debt due exclusive of Inj proceeding. pursuance assets, of the der, this or- corporation, real and adjudi was at duly sold auction $569,643.67, and was valued at company $377,357.52; the trus- Pri- bankrupt by decree of the cated a reported the sale to the was company asserted or the steel had thereto, duly meantime, $550,000. confirmed. the steel in the claim him amount company had filed its claim with referee adjudication Subsequent amounting had been representatives cy, negotiations between allowed. accordance This claim was used in representatives company part with the order sale as undertaken, and rupt were settlement $10,- price, balance, was the claim arrived amount of 999.75, All trustee. agreement were drafted. cask memoranda two also creditors were in full and all execution these proceeding, of the costs of the there now upon the steel interpretation placed them remains in the hands of the trustee the sum by1 but for company not conceded $8,000. assume, approximately of this we shall purposes

rtho- company’s position deciding, that the without After the settlement been made be- following recital well outlined company bankrupt, tween the steel founded: Judge in- and the referee were agreement by counsel that an first formed agreed It was concerning the claim of the steel get been made certain that Moss should (cid:127)memorandum if cash, company, and the said that assets, including $10,000 in scheduled the ar- of, creditors were taken care $130,923, all other that the cor- all at valued satisfactory to him. The including rangement was trus- claims, should certain poration banks, informed tee was also $65,200 the sum of still retains part, on its nated judge. judge If confirms has not he property Moss because allotted to composition, the consideration dis is agreed. The he payments to made the -which the, tributed, direct, as the property sell this power has to- case in bankruptcy dismissed; is but when proceeds, to reimburse itself from composition confirmed, not is has inference but it not done so. The statute, is estate in administered not now of suf- property that is it fears bankruptcy way. usual The effect $38,500' value to tho ficient balance composition a successful supersede is to time, this it to claims duo bankruptcy proceedings and revest the bank apply therefore seeks an order of rupt with title to free from of the trusted to in the hands claims of his creditor. 70f Section of the the debt. ,C. Act, Bankruptcy 11 U. S. 110 (f), § 11 tried, if were it case luis Tho (f); 110 § Mfg. Cumberland Glass solely between the steel v. DeWitt, Co. 237 35 U. S. Ct. having no tho 59 L. Ed. 1042. It is manifest that there was appel not contended But is result. it composition no such this case. offer of No jurisdiction the District Court had lant that composition creditors, was submitted to the arising tho docs try confirmation thereof was or re citizens of breach of between ceived from the parties state, provi unless it within same falls proceed as if property, tho title to real Bankruptcy As a Act. sions of the National in tho revested Court court bankrupt but as if it remained in tho vested section 2 under subsection 7 trustee. For contemplated (7), act, (7), § 11 USCA 11 11 U. S. § the property that conveyed sold and ho to, money distri to reduce by the trustee, was done and this under tho since creditors; it to bute formal order of court. estate has been legis, the court has is custodia bankruptcy administered in in accordance disposition in the sub power to determine its prescribed statute, with method in tile estate. sequent administration Lazar proceedings not Prentice, us, Michel & Lazarus 234 v. U. superseded. Remington on Bankruptcy (3d ju 34 S. 58 Ed. 1305. The Ct. L. Ed.) § states that there seams he no bankruptcy, however, risdietion of a court of objection to informal compositions, so far ass character, limited its is aof concerned, they law are full of such, only origin, and covers matters as parlies. risks tho This statement is far statute, specified in tho must be dealt expression an opinion, from appel as tho (C. the statute In re Hollins with as directs. argument implies, lant’s that a court of bank ;349 A.) 229 F. & Stearns White re to determine all con 833; City F. Jones v. Kansas may troversies which arise between par tho A.) F.(2d) (C. Custom Garment M. Co. ties the course informal settlement' 649. purview the bankruptcy outside law. Luxury Company (C. See Fruit v. Harris appellant suggests that the deal Tho 740; (C. F. In re Jacobson A.)C. case, talcing ings parties between F. In Malkan C. A.) re information some into consideration given District about them a, trustee, composition compromise Nor was there a con bankrupt troversy provisions with his tho tho of section 27 of power act, (11 Court therefore has 50), § controversy which has arisen between the en carrying That provides trustee, of his creditor's force. composition approval court, may compro of the with effect. Bankruptcy (11 any controversy arising Act U. S. C. USCA mise tho adminis [11 30]), either In the instant tration estate. adjudication, offer terms was not a fore or settlement or compromise ap his creditors company, plication composi although confirmation of he had somo infor regard in tho it; compromise. tion court been mation approv- of 11 U. S. C. the court for its date, property acquired- agree- 110). After that although that an the court was told al, is free from the attacks that nei- ment been made. is obvious competent his antecedent took he nor the trustee ther the court engagement. It fol- to enter into new agreements into which sponsibility would, ellant’s, app contrary entered, to lows elaim that of like bankruptcy is arising and to demands terms the act filed, not a elaim not be good practice in of bank- the administration trus- enforced estate. rupt require estates settlement to recognize agreements of tee to specifically does and which the which trustee is not a disposition surplus provide of such a for the court does not confirm. in this section 11 U. as exists 57k appellant section also relies on (b), points S. (k), act .§ way which followed. should be which (k), that claims for that dividends vides unclaimed reconsidered be been allowed year shall be distributed to equities .cause,according of the ease claims have but not whose been allowed estate has been closed. but not after the fore full, such claims have company’s elaim of the bank the balance be .-arising of transactions before nupt. So the act con used allowed the referee cy, was templates return of a credit on as a debtg full of property. proposal price of the Ques general equitable principles. under arisen, regarded as 66b tions have ,a amendment of or an reconsideration surplus, sub whether in the ease a obligation of the claim, include so sequent filing petition agreements of springing from surplus is provable on claims before objection to this insuperable settlement. over to the Johnson v. Nor turned elaim now additional suggestion is 459, 1915B, (C. A.) ris 190 F. L. R. A. filing of after the time arose advanced In re John Osborn’s & Co. Sons (4) bankruptcy. 63a (N. S.) 887; 29 L. R. A. (a) (4), 11 U. S. recognized whether claims should be interpreted (a) (4), as during proved have not been Court, provides that founded Supreme period filing In re Silk claims. implied express or on a (2d) F. is no 918. But there estate if proved allowed holding a elaim which has arisen sub absolutely owing at time Are petition, sequent Reeves, 227 U. in Zavelo v. So filed. provable, therefore share Cas. 57 L. Ed. Ann. 33 Ct. plus. promise a 1914D, 664, that a it was held judgment Since the below to a amounted between the made rejection of a debt or elaim es discharge, balance of tate, appeal lay under section 25a of who had to a creditor debt appeal act. The taken under section 24b him effect to enable creditors, dismissed, appeal therefore provable claim not constitute did judgment of the District filing of was created because Court is affirmed. obligation that therefore petition; and discharge included in NORTHCOTT, Judge (dissent- suit in could be enforced ruptcy, and ing). obliga Generally speaking, the state bankrupt’s I holding concur cannot that a court may be . tions discharged, bankruptey he is does not from which estate, and trus settle his estate-to nature transfer well as considered, relating relate to here fund benefit of for the custody of the court. proceedings. See section inception of notes made, therewith, at one meet- and he deposited retaining the collateral n attorneys parties. ing of give up certain claims should however, were not defalcation, agreements, including the claim approval, and were filed as scheduled, all other assets get proceedings. part of the in cash. The including n agreed'to trustee; acquainted with the details were other indebtedness and the all them, proceeding. In or- costs of thereto, any responsibility assume arrangement carry effect der to *performanee. After the sale had their a for memorandum as of in second (spoken company place, certain the steel to the District taken composition to be submitted by collateral, bankrupt, secured notes of approval), it was trustee, retaining them to the and delivered prompt sale of all as- make objection part; on his without collateral company should be- the sets, accepted the collateral ex- writing by majority evidence that but there number obligations. and amount of in value the the con sideration performed the .steel deposited has been place desig ain

Case Details

Case Name: Wheeling Structural Steel Co. v. Moss

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 2, 1932

Citation: 62 F.2d 37

Docket Number: 3300, 3390

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.