Court Opinion

ID: 9636542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:32:43.720914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:40.771728
License: Public Domain

JOHNSEN, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in Judge STONE’S able and painstaking opinion, except as to the portion that holds that the referee and the district court were not justified in treating Goldie’s advances as the equivalent of capital contributions as against other creditors. I believe that the facts warranted such a conclusion on the part of the referee and the district court for subordination purposes, and have previously expressed similar views in the corresponding situations in Barlow v. Budge, 8 Cir., 127 F.2d 440, 445, and Boyum v. Johnson, 8 Cir., 127 F.2d 491, 494. The point is not important here in view of the general result reached, and I advert to it only as a matter of personal consistency.
WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge, concurs in the opinion of Judge JOHNSEN on this point.