Case Name: In re PURVINE
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1899-06-28
Citations: 96 F. 192
Docket Number: No. 850
Parties: In re PURVINE.
Judges: Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 96
Pages: 192–199

Head Matter:
In re PURVINE.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 28, 1899.)
No. 850.
1. Bankruptcy — Appeal and Review.
On a petition to the circuit court of appeals to review and revise an order of- the district court in bankruptcy, under Bankruptcy Act 1898, §§ 24, 24b, only questions of law will be considered.
2. Same — Jurisdiction—-Requiring Bankrupt to Surrender Property.
A court of bankruptcy has jurisdiction and power to order a bankrupt to pay over to his trustee money found to be in his possession and control, and properly belonging to his estate in bankruptcy; and, if the bankrupt fails to obey such order, the court may commit him, as for a contempt of court, until he complies.
Shelby, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Petition for Review of an Order of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas, in Bankruptcy.
The creditors of A. S. Purvine, on November .23, 1898, filed a petition against him in the United States district court for the Northern district of Texas, praying that he be declared a bankrupt. It was alleged that he was insolvent, and that he had sold his property, and was concealing the proceeds to defraud his creditors. The schedule filed by Purvine showed an indebtedness of $4,600, and no assets but a homestead. Purvine was duly adjudged a bankrupt, and O. B. Colquitt was appointed trustee. On the 16th of January, 1899, upon the application of the petitioning creditors, Purvine was examined. On the 25th of January, 1800, the said creditors filed a petition addressed to the referee, alleging that it appeared from the bankrupt’s examination that he had in his possession §8,300, and that Purvine denied that he had possession of this fund, and refused to deliver the same to-the trustee. The petition charged that his schedule of assets was false in failing to include this fund, and that he was concealing the same. The prayer was for an order to require Purvine to pay this money to the trustee. Purvine filed an answer, under oath, denying that he had such funds, or any other property except that stated in his schedule. The referee, however, made an order requiring Purvine to pay to Colquitt, -die trustee, §7,400 by April 1, 1809. On the llth of April, 3890, Purvine having failed to pay the money, the creditors prayed for a certificate of contempt from the referee to the district judge. On the 8th of May, 1899, on the motion of the creditors, an order was made by the district court requiring Purvine to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for failing to pay the money to the trustee. On May 15. 1899, Purvine answered that on the 27th day of February, 1899, he had filed his sworn answer that he did not have the money, and could not pay it over, as ordered by the referee. He also said that he had at all times obeyed the orders of the court except, to turn over ilie money which he did not have to tarn over; that he had fully answered all questions propounded lo him touching the money alleged to be in his possession, and had shown that the money had been stolen from him, or lost, while he was in a slate of intoxication. On May 19, 1899, the district court entered an order approving the order of the referee, and requiring Purvine to turn over lo I he trustee the .87,100 by 12 m. on the next day, the 20th of Hay, and in the interim to be under the surveillance of the United States marshal, and requiring the cost of tile attendance of the marshal to bo paid by Purvine; and the order further gave Purvine and his counsel until 10 o’clock on May 20, 1899, to file his motion to vacate the order. On May 20, 1899, a motion to vacate the order was filed, based upon the ground that the order was unlawful, for reasons therein slated. On the 20th of May, 1899, the court overruled the motion to vacate or modify its order, and entered the following order: That, “it appearing to the court that the order of tiie referee requiring riie payment of §7,400 to O. B. Colquitt, trustee, was lawfully made, and that said bankrupt is now in possession and control of the sum of §7,400, and the same lawfully belongs in the custody of the said trastee, and is applicable to the payment of the debts of the said bankrupt duly proved against him, and it appearing that he has disobeyed the order of the referee, and is in contempt of ihe order of said referee, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the order of the referee is a lawful order; and, it further appearing tliai the time for paying fha sum of §7,400 to the trustee has expired, and Purvine has failed, and si ill fails, to comply, it is further ordered and adjudged that Purvine is guilty of contempt of the authority of the district court of the United States, and he is committed io the custody of the United States marshal, to be by him held and confined in the jail of Dallas county until the said A. S. Purvine shall pay lo O. B. Colquitt, trustee, as aforesaid, the sum of §7,400.” Upon the issuance of this order the United States marshal incarcerated the bankrupt, Purvine, and still holds him in the county jail of Dallas county by virtue of this order. This order of commitment is brought to this court by Purvine for revision.
W. S. Simklns, for bankrupt.
R. W. Flournoy and T. A. Altman, for creditors.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN, District Judge.

Opinion:
NEWMAN, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The question in the case before us is, had the district court power to pass the order excepted to, and brought before the court of appeals in vacation, in chambers, for revision?
This court only revises the action of the district court in matters of law. Bankruptcy Act 1898, § 24, 24b.
The -facts are for the district court. The judge presiding in that court found that Purvine had the money in his possession and control,, and there was ample evidence to support such finding; so the sole question here is one of the power of the district court to order a bankrupt having money in his possession, belonging to the bankrupt estate, to turn the same over to the trustee, and to punish as for contempt the failure to do so.
We are satisfied that the district court has such power. It is the duty of the bankrupt to deliver to the trustee all property subject to his debts. Upon his failure to make such delivery he may be ordered by the court to do so. Unquestionably, the court has this power. Having it, it is strange, indeed, if, when exercising it, it cannot enforce its orders. To deny this authority is to admit that a bankrupt may sit in the very presence of the court with ca.sh to any amount in his pocket, which is a part of his estate, and the title and right to the possession of which is legally in the trustee, and smile at the order of the court directing him to turn it over to the trustee. To deny this authority makes this anomaly: that it is the duty of the court to make an order which it is powerless to enforce. By section 41, Bankruptcy Act 1898, it is provided:
"A person shall not in proceedings before a referee, (1) disobey or resist any lawful order, process, or writ. b. The referee shall certify the facts to the judge, if any person shall do any of the things forbidden in this section. The judge shall thereupon, in a summary manner, hear the evidence as to the acts complained of, and if it is such to warrant him in so doing, punish such persons in the same manner and to the same extent as for contempt committed before a court of bankruptcy; or commit such person upon the same condition as if the doing of the forbidden act had occurred with reference to the process of, or in the presence of the court"
If the court of bankruptcy is powerless in this respect, persons, by becoming bankrupts, obtain an immunity not allowable in any other court of equal dignity, either federal or state, in this country. Orders similar to that made by the district judge in this case were made under the bankrupt act of 1867, and enforced in the same way. In re Dresser, 3 N. B. R. 557, Fed. Cas. No. 4,077; In re Salkey, 11 N. B. R. 423, Fed. Cas. No. 12,253; In re Peltasohn, Fed. Cas. No. 10,912; In re Kempner, Id. 7,689, 6 N. B. R. 521; In re Speyer, Fed. Cas. No. 13,239, 6 N. B. R. 255.
While we are clear, therefore, as to the existence of the authority to punish for contempt in cases like this, we think it proper to say that in the bankrupt court, as in all other courts, the power to punish for contempt should be carefully exercised. By the bankrupt law, various acts of the bankrupt are made criminal offenses, and various rights vesting in the trustee are to be enforced by proper civil proceedings in courts of competent jurisdiction. We simply pass on the question before us, and hold that, when a bankrupt has in his possession and control cash belonging to the bankrupt estate, the court may, within the meaning of the bankrupt act, make a "lawful order" directing him to turn the same over to the trustee, and on his failure to do so may commit him until he complies with the order.
We decline to interfere with the order of the district court, and consequently it is ordered that the application for a revision of the .action of the district judge in this case he, and the same is hereby, denied.