Loomis v. Gila County

Ninth Circuit

Loomis v. Gila County

103 F.2d 312, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3564

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1939

DocketNo. 8760

StatusPublished

This text of 103 F.2d 312 (Loomis v. Gila County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F.2d 312, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loomis-v-gila-county-ca9-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack