In the Matter of V-I-D, Inc., Debtor. Kelley, Glover and Vale, Inc., Trustee v. McM Coffing, Trustee

Seventh Circuit

In the Matter of V-I-D, Inc., Debtor. Kelley, Glover and Vale, Inc., Trustee v. McM Coffing, Trustee

243 F.2d 566, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 1957

Docket11983_1

StatusPublished

This text of 243 F.2d 566 (In the Matter of V-I-D, Inc., Debtor. Kelley, Glover and Vale, Inc., Trustee v. McM Coffing, Trustee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Matter of V-I-D, Inc., Debtor. Kelley, Glover and Vale, Inc., Trustee v. McM Coffing, Trustee, 243 F.2d 566, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321 (7th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In previous appeals, Nos. 11194 and 11265, 226 F.2d 113, the present appellant was before this court. In those cases appellant appealed from orders entered approving a Chapter X (11 U.S.C. A. § 501 et seq.) Reorganization Plan. In our decision, we recognized that the net result of this prolonged litigation was the determination that appellant, a mortgage holder, was relegated to the status of a Class 2 creditor, and that the bond holders were Class 1 creditors. As the assets were insufficient to cover the claims of the Class 1 creditors, appellant’s claim was of no value. Consequently, we concluded that the appellant did not have an appealable interest and allowed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The present appeal seems to be directed to the basic legality of the reorganization proceedings as well as to fee allowances. However, as pointed out by the appellee, necessarily, as a prerequisite to this appeal, appellant must be an aggrieved party. Therefore, appellant stands in precisely the same position it occupied in the previous appeals, and the motion to dismiss must be and is granted. The petition for leave to file additional parts of the designated record is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

In previous appeals, Nos. 11194 and 11265, 226 F.2d 113, the present appellant was before this court. In those cases appellant appealed from orders entered approving a Chapter X (11 U.S.C. A. § 501 et seq.) Reorganization Plan. In our decision, we recognized that the net result of this prolonged litigation was the determination that appellant, a mortgage holder, was relegated to the status of a Class 2 creditor, and that the bond holders were Class 1 creditors. As the assets were insufficient to cover the claims of the Class 1 creditors, appellant’s claim was of no value. Consequently, we concluded that the appellant did not have an appealable interest and allowed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The present appeal seems to be directed to the basic legality of the reorganization proceedings as well as to fee allowances. However, as pointed out by the appellee, necessarily, as a prerequisite to this appeal, appellant must be an aggrieved party. Therefore, appellant stands in precisely the same position it occupied in the previous appeals, and the motion to dismiss must be and is granted. The petition for leave to file additional parts of the designated record is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 F.2d 566, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-v-i-d-inc-debtor-kelley-glover-and-vale-inc-ca7-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack