Court Opinion

ID: 8637613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:47:52.055898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:59.006371
License: Public Domain

DRUMMOND, Circuit Judge.
The exception of Sutherland to this answer as insufficient must be carried back to the petition itself, and, that being done, 1 am of opinion that upon its face no case is made for the revisory power of this court under the second section of the bankrupt law. If it be conceded that the circuit court, under that section, may revise any order or ruling made in the progress or at the end of the proceedings in bankruptcy, not provided for by the 8th section, still the petition or bill must show wherein the error in the order or ruling consists. In re Alexander [Case No. 160]; Ruddick v. Billings [Id. 12.110]; Littlefield v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. [Id. 8,-400].
The petition in this case appears to have been framed on the principle that if a party merely stated the particular order or ruling of which he complained, he could thus bring up the case to be tried de novo. That has not been the construction which has been given to this section. In this instance the petitioner alleges that he should not have been declared a bankrupt, because he did not owe three hundred dollars, nor did he owe the petitioning creditors, nor had he committed any act of bankruptcy. On all these points the district court found against him. The only special circumstances to which the petitioner refers, is to a promissory note of $1,900, held by the petitioning creditors, and which he declares he did not owe, in consequence of the acts of the payee, one Moses; but the court may have been satisfied upon competent evidence that the note was assigned and held for value and in good faith before maturity; and if so. what took place between Sutherland and Moses might be immaterial.
It is not enough that the petitioner state a grievance, or allege that an error has been committed; but the nature of the error or grievance should be distinctly set forth, so that the appellate court may be able to judge of the same.
Here the evidence on which the district court found against the petitioner is not spread out in the record so that this court can determine whether any error has in fact been committed.
The petition for revision should state clearly and specifically the question decided in the district court. In re Reed [Case No. 11,638].
It is to be regretted that the supreme court has not prescribed some rule under the second section, as the practice is by no means uniform in the different districts. It is desirable that the proceedings should be as simple as possible, and, therefore, in ordinary cases it may be sufficient if a statement is made by counsel, under the direction of the judge of the district court, setting forth the order or ruling complained of, and sufficient facts to enable the appellate court to form an opinion upon the point. This, verified by the judge or clerk, might form the basis of the petition or bill in the circuit court. Of course it is not intended to intimate that the whole case may not be brought up by bill of exceptions, or otherwise; but generally the error complained of consists of a few rulings, and these disposed of, the rights of the parties are settled.
As there seems to have been a misapprehension as to the practice under the second section, I will allow the petitioner to amend his petition, if he shall be so advised.
There ought to be some limit of time within which the application should be made to the circuit court, and it will be observed that the petitioner did not file his petition until more than three months after the decree, a circumstance which would seem to need explanation.