Van Norden v. A. C. Wagy & Co.

Ninth Circuit

Van Norden v. A. C. Wagy & Co.

22 F.2d 9, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3257

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 31, 1927

DocketNos. 5250, 5251

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 22 F.2d 9 (Van Norden v. A. C. Wagy & Co.) 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

Van Norden v. A. C. Wagy & Co., 22 F.2d 9, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3257 (9th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

GILBERT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The pendency of the involuntary petition did not deprive the court below of jurisdiction to receive and consider the voluntary petition, and the fact that adjudication was made under the latter did not preclude jurisdiction to protect the creditors under the former. International Silver Co. v. New York Jewelry Co. (C. C. A.) 233 F. 945. It is held that, unless some question of the preservation of the rights under the earlier involuntary petition arises, there should be an adjudication under the subsequent voluntary petition, In re Lachenmaier (C. C. A.) 203 F. 32; In re Anderson Motor Co. (D. C.) 18 F.(2d) 1001; and that as a general rule'the adjudication should be made in the voluntary ease “since it is quicker, less expensive, and less likely to lead to delay and unnecessary litigation.” In re New Chattonooga Hardware Co. (D. C.) 190 F. 241. It results that, if the appellant failed to present to the court below ground for vacating the adjudication in the voluntary proceeding, he was entitled to no relief in that court on either of his petitions.

It remains, therefore, to inquire whether the appellant was erroneously denied the order to show cause why the adjudication on the voluntary petition should not be set aside and vacated and the receivers discharged. We think it clear that there was no error. [11]*11In the first place, the application was for an order directed only to the receivers. It seems unnecessary to cite authorities to' the proposition that in the proceeding in question the receivers were not the representatives either of the creditors or of the bankrupt, parties whoso presence was absolutely essential to the determination of the question presented by the petition. Notice to all parties who had appeared was indispensable. Tardy’s Smith on Receivers (2d Ed.) 2106.

In the second place, it is a fact decisive of the present appeals that a creditor has in no case a right to maintain a petition to vacate an adjudication of bankruptcy made in a voluntary proceeding. In re Ives (C. C. A.) 113 F. 911; In re Pennington & Co. (D. C.) 228 F. 388. In re United Grocery Co. (D. C.) 239 F. 1016; In re Ann Arbor Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 274 F. 24.

The orders of the court below are affirmed.

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

GILBERT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The pendency of the involuntary petition did not deprive the court below of jurisdiction to receive and consider the voluntary petition, and the fact that adjudication was made under the latter did not preclude jurisdiction to protect the creditors under the former. International Silver Co. v. New York Jewelry Co. (C. C. A.) 233 F. 945. It is held that, unless some question of the preservation of the rights under the earlier involuntary petition arises, there should be an adjudication under the subsequent voluntary petition, In re Lachenmaier (C. C. A.) 203 F. 32; In re Anderson Motor Co. (D. C.) 18 F.(2d) 1001; and that as a general rule'the adjudication should be made in the voluntary ease “since it is quicker, less expensive, and less likely to lead to delay and unnecessary litigation.” In re New Chattonooga Hardware Co. (D. C.) 190 F. 241. It results that, if the appellant failed to present to the court below ground for vacating the adjudication in the voluntary proceeding, he was entitled to no relief in that court on either of his petitions.

It remains, therefore, to inquire whether the appellant was erroneously denied the order to show cause why the adjudication on the voluntary petition should not be set aside and vacated and the receivers discharged. We think it clear that there was no error. [11]*11In the first place, the application was for an order directed only to the receivers. It seems unnecessary to cite authorities to' the proposition that in the proceeding in question the receivers were not the representatives either of the creditors or of the bankrupt, parties whoso presence was absolutely essential to the determination of the question presented by the petition. Notice to all parties who had appeared was indispensable. Tardy’s Smith on Receivers (2d Ed.) 2106.

In the second place, it is a fact decisive of the present appeals that a creditor has in no case a right to maintain a petition to vacate an adjudication of bankruptcy made in a voluntary proceeding. In re Ives (C. C. A.) 113 F. 911; In re Pennington & Co. (D. C.) 228 F. 388. In re United Grocery Co. (D. C.) 239 F. 1016; In re Ann Arbor Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 274 F. 24.

The orders of the court below are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F.2d 9, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-norden-v-a-c-wagy-co-ca9-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack