Case Name: In re ENNIS et al. In re SHERWOOD
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1912-05-13
Citations: 198 F. 381
Docket Number: No. 219
Parties: In re ENNIS et al. In re SHERWOOD.
Judges: Before EACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 198
Pages: 381–383

Head Matter:
In re ENNIS et al. In re SHERWOOD.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 13, 1912.)
No. 219.
Bankbottcy (§ 116 ) — Pkocbedings to Reoeaim Property — Laches.
Where certain stocks which had been pledged by a bankrupt firm of brokers as collateral, some of which they held for customers under various arrangements, were released and turned over to their receiver, and an omnibus notice was published requiring all claimants to any of such stocks to file their claims by a time stated or they would bo barred, the court is not required to consider a claim filed more than two years after the expiration of such time, in the absence of allegation and proof that the claimant did not have actual knowledge of the notice.
[Ed. Note. — B'or other cases, see Bankruptcy, Dec. Dig. § 116. ]
Coxe, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
In the matter of Thomas A. Ennis and Charles E. Stoppani, bankrupts. On appeal by Frederick D. Sherwood from an order denying his petition to reclaim certain stocks.
Affirmed.
See, also, 183 Fed. 859; 187 Fed. 720, 109 C. C. A. 468; 187 Fed. 726, 109 C. C. A. 474; 187 Fed. 728, 109 C. C. A. 476.
This cause comes here upon appeal from an order of the District Court, Southern District of New York, denying the petition of the appellant for an order directing the trustee in bankruptcy to turn over certain certificates of stock now in the possession of the trustee.
The petition was filed June, 1911. It alleges that appellant is the owner of these shares of stock, that the certificates were issued, and still stand, in his name, and that he appears as the owner on the books of the corporations issuing such stock. That he has never sold, assigned or transferred his interest in the said shares, nor parted with his property in the same; that previous to the year 1909 the certificates of stock without any indorsement of any kind or any transfer were intrusted by appellant to a third party; that appellant’s name was forged to the transfers or assignments and the certificates pledged with Ennis & Stoppani as security for some transaction, the details of which are unknown to appellant. Subsequently these certificates were used by Ennis & Stoppani as collateral to a loan from the Mechanics’ Bank. After bankruptcy the bank liquidated its loan by the sale of a portion of the collateral and after such liquidation there remained in its hands a number of securities including these certificates of stock, which were turned over to the receiver. The usual order was made directing the receiver to advertise for all claimants with notice that unless claims were filed on or before August 10, 1909, they should be barred.
The district judge was of the opinion that Sherwood was fully advised of the omnibus proceeding, and denied him leave to bring reclamation because he had ‘'failed to assert his right for more than two years with his eyes wide open.”'
Wilmer Canfield & Stone (Karl T. Frederick, of counsel), for appellant.
H. H. Kaufman and’Dix. W. Noel, for appellees.
Hays Hershfield & Wolf (Edwin D. Hays, of counsel), for trustee.
Before EACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Doc. & Am. Digs. 3907 to date, & Itep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We do not find in the record before us anything to show whether appellant did or did not have actual knowledge of the omnibus proceeding. Had all the statements of fact presented to us upon the oral argument been submitted to the district judge, with a positive statement that Sherwood had no knowledge of the pending omnibus proceeding, it is probable that he would have given appellant an opportunity to prove them, and, if proved, would have administered suitable relief. Certainly under the circumstances thus asserted it would be inequitable to turn his property over to creditors who have no title to it. But the record which has been certified, being a transcript of the record in the District Court, neither proves nor tenders sufficient to call for a determination of the application other or different from that reached in such court.
The order is affirmed.