Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/218/896/61270/
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 09:24:41
Document Index: 48120783

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1001', '§ 701', '§ 59', '§ 59', '§ 75', '§ 203']

In the Matter of Ole A. Jensen, Debtor.peoples Finance Company, Appellant, v. Ole A. Jensen, Appellee, 218 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1955) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1955 › In the Matter of Ole A. Jensen, Debtor.peoples Finance Company, Appellant, v. Ole A. Jensen, Appelle...
In the Matter of Ole A. Jensen, Debtor.peoples Finance Company, Appellant, v. Ole A. Jensen, Appellee, 218 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1955)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 218 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1955) January 31, 1955
This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing the proceedings because of want of jurisdiction. This case has been here previously. Debtor, a yard master, employed by a railroad company, filed a petition and a plan for extension under Chapter XIII (Wage Earners' Plans) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq. He authorized his employer to deduct $35 from his wages on each payday, and to turn such funds over to a disbursing agent for the benefit of his creditors. At that time the law provided that only those earning $3,600 or less could take advantage of the provisions of Chapter XIII. This limitation was later raised to $5,000. It developed that debtor's wages prior to filing the petition had exceeded $3,600 per annum and the Referee properly denied the Chapter XIII petition, but permitted an amendment whereby the same plan was presented under Chapter XI, 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq. A sizable sum was accumulated in the fund in the hands of the disbursing agent and the prospect for the payment in full of all creditors was excellent. However, the Peoples Finance Company which had a claim of $342.52 was not satisfied, and objected to the plan being carried out under Chapter XI. After the district court had confirmed the order of the Referee, the Finance Company prosecuted an appeal to this Court. We decided, In re Jensen, 7 Cir., 200 F.2d 58, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 926, 73 S. Ct. 785, 97 L. Ed. 1357, that the law did not permit an amendment from Chapter XIII to Chapter XI if the proceeding could not originally have been commenced under Chapter XI. We decided on several grounds that the proceeding before us could not have been properly commenced as a Chapter XI proceeding and we, therefore, reversed the order of the court confirming the Referee's order which approved the plan under Chapter XI.
Nor is there validity to the Finance Company's objection that notice of the motion for dismissal was not given to creditors under § 59, sub. g, of the Bankruptcy Act. At least the Finance Company was not prejudiced, for a hearing was held before the District Judge and counsel for the Finance Company vigorously objected to the entry of any order of dismissal. Furthermore, we think that the general provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, § 59, sub. g, are not applicable to the situation we are considering. It has been so held as to a farmer debtor proceeding, § 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203. In re Kovacevich, D.C., 31 F. Supp. 566. The creditors were deprived of no rights by the entry of the order of dismissal.