Case Name: In re ZEIS. In re MCCARTHY BROS. & FORD
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1917-04-24
Citations: 245 F. 737
Docket Number: No. 187
Parties: In re ZEIS. In re MCCARTHY BROS. & FORD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 245
Pages: 737–741

Head Matter:
In re ZEIS. In re MCCARTHY BROS. & FORD.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 24, 1917.
On Rehearing, July 10, 1917.)
No. 187.
1. Execution <@=>113 — Dormant Levy — Revival.
Where an execution becomes dormant after levy, by reason of instructions to the officer not to sell, it loses its priority of lien as against later levies or other liens acquired during the period of dormancy; hut its lien is not extinguished as against the defendant, and on directions to proceed with the sale its right to priority is revived as against any subsequently acquired liens.
2. Bankruptcy <@=>196 — Liens—Dormant L^vy oe Execution.
A trustee occupies the position of a creditor with an execution issued and levied on the date of Ihe filing of the petition in bankruptcy, but at no earlier date; and where an execution levied more than four months prior to such dato had been allowed to become dormant by successive postponements of Ihe sale with the consent of the plaintiff, but had been revived by orders to sell on a fixed date, the lien of the levy was effective against subsequent proceedings in bankruptcy against the defendant.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York.
In the matter of George J. Zeis, bankrupt. From the judgment of the District Court, McCarthy Bros. & Ford appeal.
Reversed.
For opinion below, see 229 Fed. 472.
August Becker and J. Ralph Ulsh, both of Buffalo, N. Y., for appellants.
Arthur J. Adler, of Buffalo, N. Y., for appellee.
Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal under section 25a (3) of the Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Slat. 553 [Comp. St. 1916, § 9609]), taken March 6, 1916, from a judgment of the District Court rendered February 8, 1916, refusing to give the appellants priority over the trustee in respect to execution issued upon the judgment recovered by them against the bankrupt more than four months before the petition was filed. Matter of Loving, 224 U. S. 183, 32 Sup. Ct. 446, 56 L. Ed. 725. The court found that the appellants had allowed the execution issued on their judgment to become dormant.
The court below was without jurisdiction:
First. Because the appeal was not taken within ten days after the judgment was rendered as required by the act. In re Martin, 201 Fed. 31, 33, 119 C. C. A. 363; Conboy v. Bank, 203 U. S. 141, 27 Sup. Ct. 50, 51 L. Ed. 128.
Second. Because a claim of priority, the debt not being disputed, is not "a debt or claim" within the section. The judgment of the court neither allowed nor disallowed any sum, but only denied priority. Holden v. Stratton, 191 U. S. 115, 24 Sup. Ct. 45, 48 L. Ed. 116.
The appeal is dismissed:
<@=>For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-NumbereS Digests & Indexes