Zartman v. First Nat. Bank of Waterloo

Supreme Court

Zartman v. First Nat. Bank of Waterloo

216 U.S. 134, 30 S. Ct. 368, 54 L. Ed. 418, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1879

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 21, 1910

Docket74

StatusPublished

Cited by86 cases

This text of 216 U.S. 134 (Zartman v. First Nat. Bank of Waterloo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zartman v. First Nat. Bank of Waterloo, 216 U.S. 134, 30 S. Ct. 368, 54 L. Ed. 418, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1879 (1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court..

The jurisdiction in equity to decree the correction of errors in written contracts which have been caused by mutual mistake is firmly established and needs no citation of authority to sustain it. In the present case the evidence of the mistakes in question was undisputed. We are not aware that the bankruptcy law has suspended that jurisdiction.

The position of the trustee in bankruptcy seems to be that the mistake made by Bacon in dictating or writing out the contract between himself and the Waterloo Bank “is an asset in his hands as part of the estate of the' bankrupt,” but we cannot agree to that. The trustee claims that he takes the' same kind of title as a bona fide purchaser for value, but the rule applicable to this and all similar cases is that the trustee takes the property of the bankrupt, not as an innocent purchaser, but as the debtor had it at the time of the petition, subject to all valid claims,' liens and equities. Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 516, and cases cited. And this is so well settled that our jurisdiction of the writ of error is exceedingly doubtful. Judge Williams, speaking for Appellate. Division, Fourth Department, treated of this point thus (113 App. Div. 612, 615):

“ It is said that the bankruptcy of Bacon constituted a bar to the relief granted in this action. This cannot be true. The trustee took the bankrupt’s.property in the same condition and subject to the same liens as the bankrupt himself held it. The trustee is in no sense a bona fide purchaser for value, and entitled to protection as such. No new lien was created by the decision and judgment appealed from.' The original lien was adjudicated and determined.”

We concur in this view, and the judgment is' Affirmed.

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

Me. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court..

The jurisdiction in equity to decree the correction of errors in written contracts which have been caused by mutual mistake is firmly established and needs no citation of authority to sustain it. In the present case the evidence of the mistakes in question was undisputed. We are not aware that the bankruptcy law has suspended that jurisdiction.

The position of the trustee in bankruptcy seems to be that the mistake made by Bacon in dictating or writing out the contract between himself and the Waterloo Bank “is an asset in his hands as part of the estate of the' bankrupt,” but we cannot agree to that. The trustee claims that he takes the' same kind of title as a bona fide purchaser for value, but the rule applicable to this and all similar cases is that the trustee takes the property of the bankrupt, not as an innocent purchaser, but as the debtor had it at the time of the petition, subject to all valid claims,' liens and equities. Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 516, and cases cited. And this is so well settled that our jurisdiction of the writ of error is exceedingly doubtful. Judge Williams, speaking for Appellate. Division, Fourth Department, treated of this point thus (113 App. Div. 612, 615):

“ It is said that the bankruptcy of Bacon constituted a bar to the relief granted in this action. This cannot be true. The trustee took the bankrupt’s.property in the same condition and subject to the same liens as the bankrupt himself held it. The trustee is in no sense a bona fide purchaser for value, and entitled to protection as such. No new lien was created by the decision and judgment appealed from.' The original lien was adjudicated and determined.”

We concur in this view, and the judgment is' Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 U.S. 134, 30 S. Ct. 368, 54 L. Ed. 418, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zartman-v-first-nat-bank-of-waterloo-scotus-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack