Court Opinion

ID: 8794217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 14:03:22.772881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:31.915680
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The District Judge has quite fully discussed the various questions arising on the demurrer. He found fraud on the part of Ballance in the conveyance of his property, and in the making up of the schedules. It is unnecessary to discuss this branch of the cause; we fully agree with Judge Chatfield’s conclusions thereon. The ordinary result of such conclusions would be an overruling of the demurrer with leave to answer. Because of some delay on Rubin’s part after he “had some hearsay information” as to the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings, the court further held that if he were placed on a par with the other creditors, and treated as he would have been if his name had appeared properly on the schedules, his petition should be denied.
To this disposition of the case there are several objections. In the first place Rubin’s claim is $2,638.96 less $500 which had been paid him, viz., $2,138.96. The mortgage security which was given to him on appeal from the judgment has turned out to be worthless. Twenty-two per cent, of that sum is $470.57, instead of the $244.91, which the court allowed him. Secondly, the petition is demurrable or it is not. Evidently the District Court thought that it set forth a good cause of action and we have reached the same conclusion. That being so, petitioner should have been given his choice, whether he would take the 22 per cent, in satisfaction of his claim, or take the chances of proving the allegations of his petition, disposing of whatever averments an answer to his petition might present and obtaining what relief he might get on the trial of the issues. He must, however, make an election as to which relief he will accept. He may not take the $470.57 as his share of the composition and then treat it as a partial payment only, proceeding against Ballance or the company, or both to recover unpaid balance of his claim.
So, too, respondents should be given an election either to pay the $470.57, and thus end the matter, or to answer and endeavor on the trial of the issues to show the facts to be different from what the demurrer has conceded them to be.
If no settlement of the case, on basis suggested can be agreed to by both sides, the demurrer should be overruled with leave to answer and the cause take the usual course.
The order is reversed and cause remanded with instructions to dispose of the case in conformity with this opinion.