Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/96292/re-620-church-street-building-corp
Timestamp: 2016-10-23 17:42:16
Document Index: 517755066

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 77', '§ 262', '§ 240', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 24', '§ 262', '§ 377', '§ 240', '§ 347']

In Re 620 Church Street Building Corp - Citation 96292 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize In Re 620 Church Street Building Corp. - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/96292CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnNov-09-1936Case Number299 U.S. 24AppellantIn Re 620 Church Street Building Corp.Excerpt:.....of appeals declining jurisdiction of an appeal from an order of the district court confirming a plan of reorganization under § 77b of the bankruptcy act
reviewable by certiorari under § 262 of the judicial code. p.
299 u. s. 26
2. section 262, jud.code, permits the employment of the writ of certiorari in cases not covered by § 240 and affords ample authority for using the writ as an auxiliary process and as a means of giving full force and effect to existing appellate authority and of furthering justice in other kindred ways.
3. in reorganization proceedings under § 77b of the bankruptcy act, only claims having some value are entitled to "adequate protection." p.
299 u. s. 27
4. if no substantial question of law is presented, a.....Judgment:
In re 620 Church Street Building Corp. - 299 U.S. 24 (1936)
1. A judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals declining jurisdiction of an appeal from an order of the District Court confirming a plan of reorganization under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act
4. If no substantial question of law is presented, a refusal by the Circuit Court of Appeals to allow an appeal from an order confirming a plan of reorganization under § 77B,
is not an abuse of discretion.
5. A constitutional argument with no showing of injury is unavailing.
In this proceeding under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, the District Court confirmed a plan of reorganization. Petitioners asked the Circuit Court of Appeals to allow an appeal upon the ground that the plan was unfair and inequitable and deprived them of their property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Bankruptcy Act, §§ 24b, 77B(k), 207(k);
-166. Leave to appeal was denied. In view of an asserted conflict with the decision of this Court in
, and with that of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit in
Tennessee Publishing Co. v. American National Bank,
81 F.2d 463 (
299 U. S. 18
), this Court granted certiorari.
Although the Circuit Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction, its action may properly be reviewed upon a writ of certiorari under the general power conferred by Judicial Code, § 262, 28 U.S.C. § 377. That provision contemplates the employment of this writ in instances not covered by § 240 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. § 347), and affords ample authority for using the writ as an auxiliary process and as a means "of giving full force and effect to existing appellate authority and of furthering justice in other kindred ways."
American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville Ry. Co.,
262 U. S. 162
The evidence before the District Court is not presented by the record. And, as the Court of Appeals, if the appeal had been allowed, could have revised the ruling of the court below only in matter of law, it necessarily follows, and was conceded at the bar, that petitioners are bound by the findings of fact. Petitioners insist that their consent to the plan of reorganization was necessary or that their claims should have been accorded "adequate protection." But the adequate protection to which the statute refers is "for the realization of the value of the interests, claims or liens" affected. Here, the controlling finding is not only that there was no equity in the property above the first mortgage, but that petitioners' claims were appraised by the court as having "no value." There was no value to be protected. This finding embraces whatever interests petitioners may have as junior lienors under the Illinois law, and, in the same aspect, the constitutional argument is unavailing as petitioners have not shown injury.