Greene v. Taylor

132 U.S. 415, 10 S. Ct. 138, 33 L. Ed. 411, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1889

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: December 16, 1889
• Docket: 128
• Status: Published

Opinion

Me. Justice Blatchford,

after stating! the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs claim a right to redeem from the sale to Greene, made by Peabody as trustee, or from the trust deed und[er which that sale was made, on. payment of the mortgage debt, (1) as owners of Robertson’s equity of redemption by virtue of their purchase from the assignee in bankruptcy; and (2) as judgment creditors of Robertson, having a lien on the property by virtue of their judgment, prior in time to the sale, by Peabody as trustee, and by their purchase of the property at the sale under the execution issued on their judgm'ent. •

They rest their claim under their purchase from the assignee in bankruptcy, first, on the ground that the sale by Peabody as trustee was made after the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, and after the adjudication thereon, before an assignee was appointed, and without leave of the bankruptcy court, and was void as against such assignee' and those claiming under him, that the property was still subject to the right of redemption by the assignee, and that such' right has been conveyed by him to the plaintiffs^ second, on the ground that there was a collusive agreement made with Robertson, by Peabody as agent for Greene, giving to Robertson the right to redeem from, the sale by Peabody, and that such right of redemption passed from Robertson to his assignee in bankruptcy, and from the latter to the plaintiffs.

The claim of the plaintiffs to redeem, as judgment creditors of Robertson, is based on' the allegation that they were led by the wrongful conduct of the defendants to believe that the property was subject to the deed of trust to Gallup, as well as to that to Peabody; that they were not allowed an opportunity to pay off the incumbrance before the sale by Peabody, although they were ready and willing to do so; that, by rea-. son of the collusive agreement referred to, the sale by Peabody was part of a scheme to hinder them in collecting their judgment, by cutting off their lien on Robertson’s equity of redemption, and giving the property back to him, after ho should have been discharged in bankruptcy from the judgment ; that the sale by Peabody was not properly advertised; that the plaintiffs had no notice of such sale prior to its being-made ; that such notice was intentionally withheld from them; that the sale by Peabody, with the prior incumbrance of the trust deed to Gallup apparently standing against the property, when such incumbrance had been paid, was made with a view to prevent competition in bidding at the sale; that the property was sold in bulk, and not offered for sale in parcels.; and that'it was sold for an inadequate price.

■ But we do not find it necessary to consider any of these questions, because we are of opinion that the right of action of the. plaintiffs, under their title derived from the assignee in bankruptcy, was barred by the two years’ limitation enacted by the bankruptcy statute.

Section 5057 of the Revised Statutes provides as follows: “ No suit, either at law or in equity, shall be maintainable in any court between an assignee in bankruptcy and a person claiming an adverse interest, touching any property or rights of .property transferable to or vested in such assignee, unless brought within two years from the time when the cause of action accrued fer or against such assignee.”.

It is contended for the plaintiffs that the limitation provided by section 5057 applies only to the case of a contest between an assignee in bankruptcy and a person claiming an interest adversely to such assignee, touching property of the bankrupt, in a suit to which the assignee is a party; that when the assignee transferred his rights to Pratt, who acted for the plaintiffs, on the 17th of June, 1880, under the sale to Pratt made on the 24th of April, 1880, the statute ceased to run, and the interest which thus passed from the assignee then ceased to be within the terms of the bankruptcy statute of limitation, and became subject to the ordinary statute of limitation, and that the two years’ limitatiQn ha'd not run on the 24th of April, 1880, or on the 17th of June, 1880, the register’s deed to the assignee in bankruptcy having been made on the 24th of July, 1879. '

But we are of opinion that the right which passed to the assignee, to; file a bill to redeem, began to exist on the 24th of' July, 1879; that, as the bankruptcy statute of limitation began then to run against such -right in the hands of the assignee, it continued to run .after such right passed .to the. plaintiffs, by the assignee’s deed to Pratt on their behalf, of June IT, 1880, made in pursuance of the sale of April 24, 1880; that the two years’ statute of limitation bars the right asserted by the plaintiffs in their bill, in like manner as it would have barred the right of the assignee to redeem, if he had never made any. sale or conveyance to Pratt, and if he were now the plaintiff in this suit; that the suit cannot be regarded as having been brought against the widow, heirs and representatives of David E. Greene until the supplemental bill was filed, on the 17th of September, '1881, when, for the first time, the sale by Peabcdy, as trustee, to Greene, was drawn in question -in this suit; and that, as more than two years elapsed between July' 24, 1879, and September 17, 1881, the two years’ bar of the statute is complete.

That the two years’ bar of the statute applies in favor of a purchaser from an assignee in bankruptcy has been decided by this court.

In Gifford v. Helms, 98 U. S. 248, the assignee in bankruptcy was appointed in May, 1868, and sold all the assets of the bankrupt to the plaintiff in May, 1871. Afterwards the plaintiff brought suit to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance which had been made- by the bankrupt in June, ,1867. It was held that, as .the right of action on the part of the assignee in bankruptcy was barred in May, 1871, it was barred as against the plaintiff. This could not have been held if the two years’ statute of limitation had been regarded as one applying only in a suit brought by the assignee. It was said by the court, that if the conveyance sought to be impeached was made in fraud of creditors, the equities in controversy were vested in. the assignee in bankruptcy when he was appointed', and his right of action commenced at the time the assignment was made to him, and he might have pursued such right at any time thereafter; that, as' the plaintiff claimed as purchaser from the assignee, he did not acquire, under the sale made- to him by the assignee, any greater rights than those possessed by the latter; that those rights were acquired by the assignee in May, 1868 ; that throughout the period intervening between that date and May, 1871, the equities in controversy- were held by the defendant adversely to the supposed right of the assignee ; and that the right, if any, of the assignee, was barred by the two years’ statute of limitation, before the purchase by the plaintiff;

In Wisner v. Brown, 122 U. S. 214, it was held that an assignee in bankruptcy cannot transfer to a purchaser the bankrupt’s adverse interest in real estate in the possession of another claiming title to it, if two years have elapsed from the time when the cause of action therefor accrued to the assignee ; and that the right of the purchaser in such case is as fully barred by the bankruptcy statute of limitation as is that of the assignee. In that case, the suit was brought by a person who had purchased property of the estate from the assignee in' bankruptcy, and received a conveyance thereof, more than spven years after the title of the assignee accrued. The defendants pleaded the two years’ bankruptcy statute of limitations. At the time of the appointment of the assignee the property sued for was held adversely by the defendants. The court held that the assignee could not, after two years from the time of his appointment had expired, himself bring an action to recover the property, or, by selling the lands to a third person after such time had expired, enable the latter to maintain an action therefor; and it quotes with approval the remark made in Gifford v. Helms, ( supra,) that the purchaser from the assignee did not acquire by his purchase any greater rights than those possessed by the latter. •

These cases show that a conveyance by the assignee in bankruptcy cannot prevent the operation of the bar of the statute against the grantee, when it has already run against the assignee, or bring into action a new period of limitation, dating -from the time of the conveyance. Nor can it interrupt the running of the statute against the claim or right, when it has once commenced to run as against the assignee. The purchaser takes the right eum onere, subject to the continuance of the running of the statute, and subject to the fact that a part of the two years has already run as against the claim or right,.while it was in the hands of the assignee, and to the consequence that when sufficient additional time shall have run against it, in the hands of the purchaser, to make up the entire two years, the claim or right will be wholly barred. No initiation of a new period of limitation, under any statute, begins to run in favor of the purchaser at the time of his purchase, whether the two years wholly elapsed, or only a part thereof elapsed, while the claim was owned by the assignee.

But the plaintiffs seek to take the case out of the bar of the statute, by alleging that they were ignorant of their rights, and did not discover the facts relating to the sale by Peabody as trustee, and the other matters set up in their supplemental bill, until the 24th of April, 1880, which vras within two years of September 17, 1881'; and that the sale by Peabody was kept secret by the defendants, as far as possible, although the plaintiffs used diligence to discover the facts.

Even if the allegations in the supplemental bill and in the amendments thereto be regarded as sufficiently charging a fraudulent concealment by the defendants of the facts of the case, from the assignee in bankruptcy, or from Pratt, or from the plaintiffs, we do not think the evidence establishes any such fraudulent' concealment.

With the petition in bankruptcy, filed August 31,1878,-there was filed a schedule naming the creditors of Robertson holding securities, giving the name of David R. Greene as one of such creditors, his place of residence, the date of the contracting of his debt, its amount, a statement that the security was a trust deed on property in Chicago, a description of such property, the street and number where it was situated,{ and the name-of Peabody as trustee. It also disclosed the fáct that the only incumbrance on the property was the trust deed to Peabody, thus excluding the idea that the trust deed to Gallqp was in force.

Here was information, accessible to the assignee in bankruptcy when, he was appointed, information which he was bound to take notice of, information equally accessible to the plaintiffs, being in a public record; which information referred the assignee and the plaintiffs to David R. Greene for full particulars as to the property in question, and the transactions in regard to the trust deed. The petition in bankruptcy was filed thirty-seven days before the sale of the property to Greene by Peabody as trustee. 'Moreover, in the petition of the plaintiffs, filed in the bankruptcy court October 5, 1878, two days before the sale by Peabody, and sworn to by the agents of the plaintiffs, the contents of the schedules in bankruptcy of Robertson are referred to, and it is stated that among the assets set forth in such schedules is the property in question, identifying it. This shows that information was actually had by such agent, at that time, of the facts before set forth as contained in one of such schedules, as to the particulars of the trust deed to Peabody, and as to who was the holder of the note secured by it and where he resided. That petition was filed more than nine months before the assignee in bankruptcy was appointed.

The rights of the plaintiffs must depend wholly upon such right of redemption as existed in Robertson, and passed to his assignee in bankruptcy, and from the latter to the plaintiffs. That being extinguished, no other right exists, and the plaintiffs have no right to redeem through any separate title acquired under their judgment against Robertson. They did not become, by the recovery of their judgment, or by anything done under it, the successors of Robertson.in respect of any right of redemption, but they must follow and acquire their only title to such right, through the assignee in bankruptcy. Moreover, whatever right to redeem they could have acquired by virtue of their judgment was waived by them by their petition of March 25, 1880, to the bankruptcy court, and by their procuring the property in question to be- sold by the assignee in bankruptcy, and its proceeds to be applied on their judgment. At their own suggestion the equity of redemption, which was sold by the assignee, was thus put beyond their reach.

The result of these views is that the decree of the Circuit Court must he reversed, and the case he remanded to that court with a direction to enter a decree dismissing the hill, with costs.