Court Opinion

ID: 9299138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:05:44.314877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:36.826379
License: Public Domain

DILLON, Circuit Judge.
I am of opinion that the special verdict is defective in not covering the issues or affording a basis of facts for a decision, for or against the petition. The result is, that there was simply a mis-trial, leaving the case pending in the bankruptcy court. ■ It was so pending when the amended bankrupt act of June 22, 1874, took effect, and the retroactive provisions of that act applied to it as an undetermined ease, requiring the assent of one-fourth in number and one-third in value of the creditors.
The petition was amended, alleging that the requisite proportion of creditors as to number and value concurred in the proceeding, and stating acts of bankruptcy to comply with the new provisions of law, and issue was taken on this amended petition by the debtor. These issues as to the acts' of bankruptcy were never tried, but the court entered an order on the 18th day of November, 1874, based upon the special verdict of May 4th, 1874, dismissing the petition of the creditors and all proceedings under the same, and ordering the marshal .to restore to the debtor all property held under' the provisional warrant. This was erroneous. The special verdict being defective, there was a mis-trial, leaving the case pending in the court, and the order ought to have been to set aside the special verdict and to have the issues made by' the amended pleadings, tried and determined in the usual manner. The order of the 18th day of November, 1874, above mentioned, is reversed and set aside, and the district court ordered to proceed in the case in a manner not inconsistent with the order herein made, and to require the marshal to take possession of the property of debtor. Ordered accordingly.