Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/96803/john-hancock-mut-life-ins-co-vs-bartels
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 20:40:20
Document Index: 461259699

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 75', '§ 75', '§ 75', '§ 75', '§ 75', '§ 75', '§ 75']

John Hancock Mut Life Ins Co Vs Bartels - Citation 96803 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. Vs. Bartels - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/96803CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnDec-04-1939Case Number308 U.S. 180AppellantJohn Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.RespondentBartelsExcerpt:.....to the report of the conciliation commissioner, to whom the matter was referred according to the statute, bartels had appeared at the meeting of the creditors and had submitted to a detailed examination concerning his financial condition. he proposed to sell certain property and to apply the proceeds to the payment in part of the amounts due to the john hancock company, the secured creditor. he succeeded in obtaining an agreement with certain unsecured creditors for an extension, but the secured creditor refused consent, as bartels could not meet all his arrears. bartels was thus precisely in the condition prescribed in subsection (s).
the subsections of § 75 which regulate the procedure in relation to the effort of a farmer debtor to obtain a composition or extension contain no.....Judgment:
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Bartels - 308 U.S. 180 (1939)
1. Subsections (a) to (r) of § 75 of the Bankruptcy Act do not provide that a petition for composition or extension shall be dismissed in the absence of a reasonable probability of the financial rehabilitation of the debtor, nor do they warrant the imputation of lack of good faith to a farmer debtor because of that plight. P.
2. The purpose of § 75 of the Bankruptcy Act is to afford relief to debtors in economic distress, however severe, by giving them a chance to seek an agreement with their creditors, under subsections (a) to (r) and, failing this, to ask for the other relief afforded by subsection (s). P.
3. Section 75(i) of the Bankruptcy Act in providing that, before confirming proposals for composition or extension the court must be satisfied that the offer and its acceptance are in good faith and have not been made or procured by forbidden means or except as provided by the statute, hits at secret advantages to favored creditors or other improper or fraudulent conduct. P.
308 U. S. 185
that he was entitled to be so adjudged and to have his proceeding for relief entertained and his property dealt with in accordance with that subsection, and that the court of bankruptcy erred in dismissing the petition upon the ground that, under the evidence, there was no reasonable probability of his financial rehabilitation and because, in the judge's opinion,
no offer had been made by the debtor which could be construed a an offer in good faith for extension and composition. P.
308 U. S. 183
In this proceeding brought by a farmer under § 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, the District Court dismissed the debtor's petition. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that this action was contrary to the requirements of the statute, and directed the proceeding to be reinstated. 100 F.2d 813. Because of conflict in the rulings of the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, due to the differing views of the judges composing the court in the cases cited, [
] and because of the importance of the question, we granted certiorari, 307 U.S. 617.
Subsection (s) of § 75, as amended by the Act of August 28, 1935, [
] prescribes a definite course of procedure. That
The subsections of § 75 which regulate the procedure in relation to the effort of a farmer debtor to obtain a composition or extension contain no provision for a dismissal because of the absence of a reasonable probability of the financial rehabilitation of the debtor. [
] Nor is there anything in these subsections which warrants the imputation of lack of good faith to a farmer debtor because of that plight. The plain purpose of § 75 was to afford relief to such debtors who found themselves
value of which has thus been devoted to the payment of his debts. There is the further proviso, for the protection of secured creditors, that, upon request in writing by any secured creditor, the court shall order the property upon which the secured creditor has a lien to be sold at public auction.
See Wright v. Vinton Branch, supra,
300 U. S. 458
-461. The debtor is to have ninety days to redeem the property so sold by paying the amount for which it was sold, with interest, into court, and he may apply for his discharge as provided in the Act. If, however, the debtor at any time fails to comply with the provisions of the section or with any orders of the court made thereunder, or is unable to refinance himself within three years, the court may order the appointment of a trustee and direct the property to be sold or otherwise disposed of as provided in the Act.
The scheme of the statute is designed to provide an orderly procedure so as to give whatever relief may properly be afforded to the distressed farmer debtor, while protecting the interests of his creditors by assuring the fair application of whatever property the debtor has to the payment of their claims, the priorities and liens of secured creditors being preserved.
See Wright v. Vinton Branch, supra; Adair v. Bank of America Assn.,
303 U. S. 350
303 U. S. 354
Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance Co.,
See Baxter v. Savings Bank of Utica,
92 F.2d 404;
100 F.2d 820;
Wilson v. Alliance Life Insurance Co.,
102 F.2d 365.
49 Stat. 943;