Case Name: ALLIANCE TRUST CO., LIMITED, v. STREATER et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1935-04-01
Citations: 161 So. 168
Docket Number: No. 33066
Parties: ALLIANCE TRUST CO., LIMITED, v. STREATER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter
Volume: 161
Pages: 168–175

Head Matter:
182 La. 102
ALLIANCE TRUST CO., LIMITED, v. STREATER et al.
No. 33066.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
April 1,1935.
Rehearing Denied April 29, 1935.
Modisette & Adams, of Jennings, for appellant.
Plauehe & Bass, of Lake Charles, for ap-pellee Terrell Woosley.
McCoy, King & Jones, of Lake Charles, for all' other appellees.

Opinion:
ODOM, Justice.
We refused to dismiss the appeal in this case on October 29, 1934 (180 La. 814, 157 So. 726) and ordered the case set down for hearing on its merits, for reasons stated in our opinion.
Counsel for the appellees have again urged and argued the motion to dismiss, and in this motion they are now joined by the trustee of Winfield S. Streater, the bankrupt, who is now a party to this suit. (See our former opinion). But nothing said at the bar or in the briefs has caused us to change our original view that the case should be heard and decided on its merits. Most serious charges of fraud and unfair dealings against several persons involved were made by plaintiff in its pleadings and these charges were stressed during the trial in the lower court and are still urged. In fact, plaintiff bases its right to recover mainly on these charges and the testimony adduced to support them. The trial court permitted the introduction of all pertinent testimony pro and con and there was built up a voluminous and expensive record of 500 pages. The facts are all before us and it is conceded by appellees, as well as the bankrupt's trustee, that the court is vested with jurisdiction to finally pass upon the issues involved. Counsel for the bankrupt's trustee, speaking in their brief of the argument made by counsel for appellant that this court has jurisdiction, say:
"We have no knowledge of any one questioning the jurisdiction of this court as to the result of the bankruptcy of Mr. Streater, and are unable to appreciate why the question was presented with such apparent seriousness."
It is argued by counsel for the appellee and by those for the trustee that inasmuch as Streater, the principal defendant, went into voluntary bankruptcy after the ease was tried and while it was pending.in the lower court on application for rehearing, and a trustee was appointed for his estate, the trustee was subrogated to all rights of action which plaintiff had to set aside the various alleged fraudulent transactions and that plaintiff has no further pecuniary interest in this litigation and is deprived of its right to control the suit in this court. Cbunsel for the trustee say in their brief at page 22:
"The subrogation of appellant's right of action to the trustee deprives appellant of control of this suit, but does not deprive this court of jurisdiction. Appellant has not cited, either in its brief on the merits or in its two briefs in opposition to the motion to dis miss the appeal, one decision in opposition to the many cited supra, interpreting sections 67b and 70e [Bankr. Act, 11 USCA § 107 (b), 110 (e)], vesting the trustee with all the rights of action formerly enjoyed by appellant."
The trustee is now a party to this litigation and has joined the appellees in asking that the appeal be dismissed, or if it is not dismissed, that the judgment be affirmed. As this court has jurisdiction and the trustee is now a party, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the trustee is subrogated under the allegations and facts disclosed to all the rights of action formerly enjoyed by the plaintiff, or whether the trustee is vested with control of this appeal, for it does not matter who controls it, whether appellant or the trustee. We think the appeal should not be dismissed.