Loomis v. Gila County

103 F.2d 312, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3564
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 3, 1939·No. No. 8760·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing cites the following cases where the trustee in bankruptcy, in exercising his functions under Sec. 24b or Sec. 25a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 47(b), or 48(a), has an interest in the decree or order below warranting his taking an appeal or appearing as appellee to defend that interest: Morgan et al. v. First National Bank, etc., 4 Cir., 145 F. 466; In re First National Bank of Louisville, 6 Cir., 155 F. 100; Gaudette v. Graham, 9 Cir., 164 F. 311; Holden v. Stratton, 191 U.S. 115, 24 S.Ct. 45, 48 L.Ed. 116, and Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works, 194 U.S. 296, 24 S.Ct. 690, 48 L.Ed. 986.

All are cases having to do with claims of creditors against the bankrupt estate of which he is trustee, or claims for exemption or of title to property, both of the latter affecting the size of the estate. They afford no analogy for the determination of a trustee’s interest in the dismissal of a section 77B, Bankr.Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207, proceeding. The dismissal here determines that there is no merit to the contention that there should be a reorganization of this solvent company, with a mere corollary that there is no longer an estate for which the court requires a trustee. The trustee is not concerned with the merits of the petition under section 77B or its dismissal.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

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

Loomis v. Gila County, 103 F.2d 312, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3564 (9th Cir. 1939).

103 F.2d 312 (Loomis v. Gila County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holden v. Stratton
191 U.S. 115 (Supreme Court, 1903)
Hewit v. Berlin MacHine Works
194 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 1904)
Morgan v. First Nat. Bank of Mannington
145 F. 466 (Fourth Circuit, 1906)
First Nat. Bank v. Holt
155 F. 100 (Sixth Circuit, 1907)
Gaudette v. Graham
164 F. 311 (Ninth Circuit, 1908)