Court Opinion

ID: 6662287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:03:04.461133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:12.774168
License: Public Domain

Sedgwick, J.,
concurring.
The appellant states as the proposition of law relied upon for reversal that “all of the property owned by the bankrupt at the date of the filing of the petition passed to the trustee, and from the trustee to the purchaser at the sale.” This is the only question discussed with any attempt at compliance with supreme court rule 12. The petition in bankruptcy was filed December 18, 1907. The adjudication of bankruptcy was June 18, 1909. If the date of the appointment of a receiver is stated in the briefs, it is lost in the mass of evidence stated, but not utilized by the parties under rule 12. April 20, 191(3, the property of the bankrupt was ordered sold, and was ac*640cording'ly sold by tbe trustee December 15, 1910. There is no doubt, under the many cases cited by appellant, that as between creditors, and as to the right to prefer creditors, and perhaps for other purposes, the filing of the petition in bankruptcy fixes “the date of cleavage.” Even for a time before the petition is filed creditors are prevented from obtaining preferences. For 18 months after the petition in bankruptcy was filed the property remained in the hands and under the control of the alleged bankrupt before any further proceedings were had. It was cared for and protected by the alleged bankrupt; this plaintiff having been employed for that purpose. Neither the creditors nor the court objected to using the money or property for that purpose. There was no appointment of a receiver until after the services were rendered and paid for. It would seem, under the decisions of the federal courts, cited by the parties, that to employ and pay the plaintiff was the proper thing to do. However that may be, which is a question for the federal courts, the creditors and the court, by its receiver, are not now complaining. The appellant claims to have bought this property at the receiver’s sale, but the property was not described or included in the inventories, and, with the consent of all parties interested, had been shipped to Omaha before appellant ‘purchased at the sale, which seems to be a complete ansAver to this claim. The appellant could not buy this property at the receiver’s sale under the circumstances. If one of the creditors had taken this property and sold it in Omaha, another creditor, or the receiver, might require an accounting for the property. If this plaintiff has made himself liable to the creditors or to the receiver for the proceeds of this property, that fact would not transfer the title and ownership of the property to a subsequent purchaser of the remaining property of the bankrupt. The appellant suggests in the brief that the plaintiff conspired with the manager of the bankrupt company to withdraw these plates from a machine of which they were really a part, and, for that reason, when appellant bought that machine it also *641bought these plates, Which were then in Omaha, and so is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the plates. But there is no citation or discussion in the brief, in connection with this suggestion, of any evidence which would support such a charge, even if that would give appellant any right to the proceeds of the sale of the plates. In any view of the case, so far as appears from the discussion in the brief, the judgment of -the court is the only one that could be supported, and I concur in affirming it.