In re William F. Fisher & Co.

148 F. 907, 1906 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 13, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 148 F. 907 (In re William F. Fisher & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re William F. Fisher & Co., 148 F. 907, 1906 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102 (D.N.J. 1906).

Opinion

LANNING, District Judge.

This proceeding brings before the court three questions: First, who shall pay to Joseph Allgair the amount due to him for the cost of improvements upon the lands of the bankrupt; second, who shall pay the costs incurred in the proceedings for ascertaining the amount due to Joseph Allgair; and, third, who shall pay the taxes assessed against the bankrupt’s real estate for the years 1902, 1903, and 1904.

On July 7, 1905, the Sayre & Fisher Company filed its petition,' praying that the private sale of the bankrupt’s real estate made by the bankrupt’s trustees to Joseph Allgair on June 15, 1905, for $55,000. be set aside, and offering, if an order to that effect should be made, to deposit security that it would at a public sale offer $60,000 therefor. On July 8th the Sayre & Fisher Company filed a supplemental petition, stating that, if the private sale should be set aside, it, “in addition to its bid of $60,000 for the said property and plant, will repay to the said purchaser of the said property, if the Sayre & Fisher Company shall be the successful bidder for the same, the moneys actually expended by him in improvements placed upon said plant since he became [908]*908the purchaser thereof at the private sale heretofore made by the trustees of the said bankrupt as shall be decided by the court.” On July 24, 1905, the Sayre & Fisher Company having deposited security in the sum of $60,000, -this court, for the reasons in its order of that date stated, set aside the private sale to Joseph Allgair and directed the trustees to resell the property “at public auction to the highest bidder, free and discharged of and from all incumbrances, at a price not less than the sum of $60,000, and,' in addition thereto, such sum of' money as a judge of this court shall determine that the said Joseph All-gair is lawfully and equitably entitled to have refunded to him, if any, for disbursements made by him on account of or by reason of his said purchase, and also for moneys actually expended by him in making- improvements, if any, to the said propert)r since he obtained the possession thereof under and by virtue of the sale of said property to him by said trustees, which sale is, upon review, now by this court vacated, set aside, and for nothing hoi den, due allowance in estimating said amount to be paid said Joseph Allgair as aforesaid first being made for any waste or depreciation of or to said property, land, and premises, made or done by said Joseph Allgair, liis servants, agents or employés, since he, said Joseph Allgair, took possession thereof as aforesaid, until he, said Joseph Allgair, shall surrender, as herein ordered, to said trustees all the said lands, property and estate which so came into his possession as aforesaid.”

Immediately after the making of the above order Joseph Allgair took an appeal therefrom to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and on July 31, 1905, he appeared in this court, and offered to place the property in the possession of the bankrupt’s trustees, on terms not necessary now to be stated, to be held by the trustees pending the appeal, which offer was accepted. There were at that time two mortgage incum-brances upon the bankrupt’s property, the first for $24,000, with accrued interest, and the second, which had been foreclosed in the New Jersey Court of Chancery and merged into a final decree, for something over $15,000. Sale under the execution issued upon this decree had long been stayed by this court. Feeling that the stay ought not to be continued during the pendency of the appeal above mentioned, an order vacating the stay was signed on August 14, 1905. As the making of this order rendered it possible ‘for the complainant in the foreclosure case to sell the property under the execution issued in that case, and thereby defeat the purpose of the order of July 24, 1905, which was to secure a sale of the property for a larger sum than $55,-000, another order, dated back to July 31, 1905, the terms of which were agreed to by the Sayre & Fisher Company, was made, containing the following provisions:

-‘And it is further ordered that the Sayre & Fisher Company shall enter into an agreement to and with said trustees in bankruptcy herein, said corporation having been duly authorized by resolution of its board of directors, therein and thereby agreeing and undertaking to bid for said property the sum of at least sixty thousand dollars and, in addition thereto, such sum of money as this court shall determine that the said Joseph Allgair is lawfully and equitably entitled to have refunded to him, if any, for disbursements made by him on account of or by reason of his purchase, and for moneys actually expended by him in making permanent improvements to the said property, [909]*909since lie obtained the possession thereof under and by virtue of the sale of said property to him by said trustees, and also, in addition thereto, tlie interest upon two mortgages, one now or lately held by the National Bank of New Jersey of New Brunswick, in the sum of twenty-four thousand dollars, and the other now or lately held by the Empire State Trust Company in tlie amount secured to that company by the final decree of the Court, of Chancery in foreclosure proceedings, wherein said company was complainant and the bankrupt herein and others were defendants, which interest is to be calculated from the day of tlie date of tlie sale to said Joseph Allgair, to wit, the 15th day of June, 1905, up to the day when tlie deed shall be delivered to the purchaser oil a sale of said plant under any writ of execution heretofore issued or that may hereafter he issued upon said final decree, provided such sale shall take place prior to a resale of the said property and estate by the trustees in bankruptcy herein, and prior to the final determination by a superior court of the petition of review heretofore filed as aforesaid by said Joseph Allgair. Said hid shall he subject to the lien of a first mortgage dated October 37, 1901, for the sum of $24,000, now or lately held by the National Bank of New Jersey, the principal sum of which with accrued interest shall be credited upon said hid and the balance of said bid shall be paid in cash. And it is further ordered that said ^ayre & Ifislier Company shall in and by their agreement so to be made with the said trustees as aforesaid undertake and agree in like manner to bid for said property the sum of at least $(>0,000, and such additional sums, if any, to be determined by this court as aforesaid, together witli the interest on said two mortgages respectively, for the aforesaid property if and when tlie same shall he sold at a valid sale under and by virtue of a valid final decree or judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction under any proceedings liad and taken in any such court by any lienor other than tlie Empire State Trust Company, having a valid and subsisting lien on the aforesaid property and estate, provided sncli last-mentioned sale shall take place prior to a resale of the said properly and estate by the trustees in bankruptcy herein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of New York v. Saper
336 U.S. 328 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Saper v. City of New York
168 F.2d 268 (Second Circuit, 1948)
Secretary of Labor & Industry v. Epp
121 F.2d 846 (Third Circuit, 1941)
In Re Wm. Akers, Jr., Co.
121 F.2d 846 (Third Circuit, 1941)
Torrington Co. v. Sidway-Topliff Co.
70 F.2d 949 (Seventh Circuit, 1934)
In Re Wells
4 F. Supp. 329 (D. Maryland, 1933)
In re Kootenai Motor Co.
41 F.2d 399 (D. Idaho, 1930)
United States v. Bernstein
16 F.2d 233 (Eighth Circuit, 1926)
In re Brezin
297 F. 300 (D. New Jersey, 1924)
Kaw Boiler Works v. Schull
230 F. 587 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)
In re Wenatchee Heights Orchard Co.
212 F. 787 (W.D. Washington, 1914)
In re Sherwoods, Inc.
210 F. 754 (Second Circuit, 1913)
In re Wylie
153 F. 281 (Third Circuit, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 F. 907, 1906 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-f-fisher-co-njd-1906.