Case Name: In re COLE. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BIDDEFORD et al. v. COLE
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1907-10-24
Citations: 163 F. 180
Docket Number: No. 686
Parties: In re COLE. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BIDDEFORD et al. v. COLE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 163
Pages: 180–189

Head Matter:
In re COLE. FIRST NAT. BANK OF BIDDEFORD et al. v. COLE.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
October 24, 1907.
On Rehearing, February 5, 1908.)
No. 686.
1. Bankruptcy — Orders—Refusal to Obey — Contempt.
If a bankrupt willfully disregards an order of the court requiring payment of money to the trustee, he may be proceeded against for contempt under the general powers vested in superior courts of judicature, or under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2, 30 Stat. 545, 546 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3420).
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 166.]
2. Same — Review—Mode.
Where a proceeding in .the District Court against a bankrupt for contempt in refusing to comply with an order of the court requiring her to pay money to the trustee is taken by virtue of the authority conferred on District Courts in bankruptcy by Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2, 30 Stat. 545, 546 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3420), the proper mode of obtaining a review of the proceeding is by a petition for revision under such act.
[Ed. Note. — Appeal and review in bankruptcy cases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.]
S. Same — Scope of Review — Opinions of Trial Court.
Where such a proceeding for contempt was based on Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2, 30 Stat. 545, 546 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3420), on a petition for revision the Court of Appeals may revise any question of law as to which it may justly infer from the record, including the opinions of the District Court, that such court reached a conclusion, whether formally expressed or presented or not.
4. Same — Record—Character of Proceedings.
In proceedings again'st a bankrupt for contempt in refusing to obey an order for the payment of money to the trustee, the record should show that an issue had been made on the question of contempt, and that the bankrupt adjudged guilty thereof had had an opportunity to be heard thereon. .
5. Bankruptcy — Contempt — Nature of Proceedings — Pleading—Evidence.
Contempt proceedings against a bankrupt are not required to be formal, but may be instituted by a petition sufficient to notify .the bankrupt of the charge made against him, which may be established by affidavits.
6. Same — Petition.
A petition in contempt against a bankrupt for refusing to comply with an order directing her to pay money to her trustee was defective, where it .was only such as would be required for ordinary supplementary proceedings for the recovery of a debt, and did not allege that her failure was willful or was no.t caused by mere inability.
7. Same — Orders—Contempt—Evidence.
In a contempt proceeding against a bankrupt for failure to comply with an order directing her to pay money to her trustee, evidence held insufficient to show that she had such control of the money at the time the order was entered as enabled her to comply therewith so as to render her failure to do so willful.
8. Same — Remedies of Trustee.
That a bankrupt’s trustee was not able .to compel her to pay over money in accordance with the order of the court by contempt proceedings for failure to show that'the bankrupt had such control of the fund at the .time the order was made as to have enabled her to- comply therewith did not prevent the trustee from perusing any other remedies given for the collection of a judgment from an insolvent debtor for the recovery of such fund.
Elbridge R. Anderson (Charles W. Bartlett, on the brief), for petitioner.
Benjamin Cleaves, for respondents.
Before CORT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and ARDRICH, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The court has no question as to adhering to its opinion passed down on February 16, 1906, in Annie M. Cole, petitioner, No. 618, that the order then under consideration is valid in so far as it may be regarded as a legal judgment against Mrs. Cole for the amount therein named; but the question before us now is whether that judgment can be enforced only in the ordinary way in which civil judgments rendered by the federal courts are enforced, or whether the further order of the District Court providing for enforcing it by summary proceedings involving imprisonment of the petitioner may also be availed of under the circumstances. Therefore the court desires reargument on the following questions:
First, what portion of the records and proceedings in bankruptcy relating to Annie M. Cole, and what facts, may the District Court, or may this court, properly consider with reference to the subject-matter of the pending petition?
Second, can the order brought in question by the pending petition be regarded as valid, or be enforced, unless it is shown that the petitioner, Mrs. Cole, had at the date of said order funds, or could then have obtained funds, from which the payment of the amount ordered to be paid by her could then have been made or in any way secured?
Third, what are the facts, pro and con, bearing on all the topics involved in the last preceding question?
Ordered that the case be reargued at the January, 1908, session on the questions propounded by the per curiam passed down this day, and that printed briefs in reference thereto be filed on or before December 21, 1907.