Case Name: In re KESSLER et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-06-14
Citations: 180 F. 979
Docket Number: Nos. 283, 284
Parties: In re KESSLER et al.
Judges: Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 180
Pages: 979–980

Head Matter:
In re KESSLER et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 14, 1910.)
Nos. 283, 284.
Bankruptcy (§ 324 ) — Secured Claim — Interest.
A creditor holding security liquidated after the filing of the bankruptcy petition is entitled to interest on his claim after the filing of the petition, where the proceeds of the sales of the security are inadequate to pay the face of the claim.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §511; Dec. Dig. § 324. ]
Ward, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
In the matter of Alfred Kessler and others, bankrupts. On certificate of the referee to determine the propriety of the payment of interest on the balance of secured claims. From an order directing such payment (171 Fed. 751), the trustee appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 176 Fed. 647.
The referee certified to the District Court the following question: “Is a creditor holding security which is liquidated after the filing of the petition entitled to interest on his claim after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, where the proceeds of the sales of the security are inadequate to pay the face of the claim?”
The referee, furthermore, allowed the secured creditors to marshal the proceeds of their collateral securities first against interest on the debts accruing up- to the date of the liquidation oí such securities and then allowed them to prove the balance of the principal of the claims after deducting the remainder of such proceeds.
The District Court answered the question certified in the affirmative, and affirmed the order of the referee allowing the claims.
Wallace MacFarlane (George FI. Gilman and Wallace MacFarlane, of counsel), for appellant.
McLaughlin, Russell, Coe & Sprague and Lorenzo Semple (Rufus W. Sprague, Jr., and Preston Cumming, Jr., of counsel), for appellee.
Sharon Graham, for petitioner.
Frank X. Sullivan, for Josephine Watts.
Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § Number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
NOYES, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The majority of the court are of the opinion that the District Court was right in answering the question certified to it by the referee in the affirmative and in approving the allowance of the claims. But we think it unnecessary to add anything to the very careful consideration of the subject contained in Judge Hand's opinion.
The orders of the District Court are affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of the District Judge.