Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/91407/kinder-vs-scharff
Timestamp: 2017-12-14 13:29:27
Document Index: 415654957

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 2', '§ 11']

Kinder Vs Scharff - Citation 91407 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Kinder Vs. Scharff - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/91407
Case Number 231 U.S. 517
Appellant Kinder
Respondent Scharff
.....proceeding cannot be reopened on ex parte statements to enable the trustee to attack on the ground of fraud a sale made by the bankrupt where, as in this case, the trustee had the opportunity of commencing an action for that purpose before the expiration of the period. the bankruptcy court cannot, under § 2(8), remove the bar of § 11d at its own will simply because the trustee may have changed his mind and wishes to institute a suit which he might have instituted prior to the operation of § 11d. 129 la. 218 affirmed. the facts, which involve the construction and application of the limitation prescribed by § 11d of the bankruptcy act of 1898, are stated in the opinion. page 231 u. s. 520 mr. justice holmes delivered the opinion of the court. this is.....
Kinder v. Scharff - 231 U.S. 517 (1913)
U.S. Supreme Court Kinder v. Scharff, 231 U.S. 517 (1913)
estates given in § 2(8) "whenever it appears [that] they were closed before being fully administered" cannot be taken to put it into the power of the court of bankruptcy to remove the bar of § 11 at its own will simply because a trustee may have changed his mind. It was argued that the court of first instance found fraud, and that we could not review the findings of fact. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86 , 212 U. S. 97 . But, if so, we equally are barred from reviewing the findings of the supreme court, that the trustee was chargeable with knowledge of the fraud, if there was one. Therefore, a part from the difference between the statutes considered there and here, cases like Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342, and Traer v. Clews, 115 U. S. 528 , where the cause of action for fraud was concealed, do not apply. The question is simply whether, when, after an estate is closed and more than two years later, a trustee comes to the conclusion that he undervalued a claim that he knew of and might have sued upon, or finds that the value has risen since, the bankruptcy court may reopen the estate for the sole purpose of getting rid of the statute and allowing the trustee to sue. See Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 135 ; Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U. S. 185 , 111 U. S. 196 .