Court Opinion

ID: 9833194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:31:14.322885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.163237
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In our original opinion is this statement: “We regard the pleadings as presenting no issue relating to the custody of the property in controversy at the particular time of filing the petition in bankruptcy.” That was inaccurate. The thought intended to be expressed was that the pleadings presented no issue of jurisdiction as independent of and distinct from the issues involving the rights of the parties in and title to the property. The intervener trustee alleged that plaintiff “has no vajid claim or right to the possession and ownership of the said property” etc. (Italics ours.) “That the title and possession of said property has been and was at all times in the said Wm. A. Turnidge up until the filing of his petition in bankruptcy at 5 o’clock *624on April 18, A. D. 1938.” (Italics ours.) Then followed allegations .evidencing the contention that C. I. T. Corporation had no right or title to the property. The facts to show the asserted invalidity of C. I. T.’s title to the-property were averred evidently for ho other purpose than to set forth the basis upon which intervener', having invoked the jurisdiction of the court to determine the rightfulness of title and possession,’ prayed that “said Frank Massey, State Receiver, be directed to deliver to R. W. Haynie; your intervener, all property now in his possession which was taken by him from the store and possession of Wm. A. Turnidge” etc. In the pleadings there is absent any suggestion to the effect that even though C. I. T. Corporation may subsequently be adjudged in the proper court to have the better right or title to the property, only the Federal Court has jurisdiction to make such adjudication and that in the meantime the receiver is entitled to the possession regardless of the true ownership or rights in the property.
In our original consideration of the case we failed to understand the recitations of the judgment relative to jurisdiction and the provision for the dismissal of the case. In the light of appellee’s motion for rehearing they become understandable, with the .result that we are readily convinced we were in error in saying that since there was no question involved regarding the trial court’s jurisdiction we should “treat the purported dismissal of the action as surplusage, or at any rate as not affecting the real nature of the action and judgment.”
The trial court had jurisdiction even if, disregarding any question of pleading, the jurisdiction was dependent upon the question of who had possession of the property af the time the petition in bankruptcy was filed. Under the uncontrovert-ed evidence the Receiver of the state court took possession of the property about 4 o’clock, in the afternoon. He started immediately to take the merchandise out of the store and finished about 6:30 or 7:00 o’clock. The petition in bankruptcy was filed about 5 :30 p. m. The possession was not forcefully or fraudulently taken but Turnidge yielded his possession to the Receiver upon the advice of the attorney preparing. the petition in bankruptcy. The reason, however, of yielding possession is here unimportant. The fact that possession was yielded by Turnidge and taken by the Receiver before the petition in bankruptcy was filed is important and we think conclusive.
We are confronted with the question of whether it becomes our duty to remand the case for retrial even though it appears that the case has already been fully tried, and if aside from the jurisdictional question our opinion be correct, which it appears the motion for rehearing does not seriously challenge, there exists-no doubt as to the judgment which the court should have rendered. It appears to-us that all essential issues were conclusively established and if we are correct in our views of the law the court below, instead of the judgment of dismissal, should have rendered judgment in favor of C. I. T. Corporation. We, therefore, conclude it is our duty to reverse the judgment of dismissal, and render judgment that the intervener take nothing by his plea of intervention, that the plaintiff C. I. T. Corporation upon its cross-action have and recover the $1,600-deposited in the registry of the court, that otherwise the motion for rehearing be overruled, all of which is accordingly so ordered.