Court Opinion

ID: 8633939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:42:05.336501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:52.033067
License: Public Domain

WOODS, Circuit Judge.
The order of the district court is erroneous in that it orders a sale of property which is not in dispute. It appears from the petition filed in the district court that the heirs of Mrs. Ludwigson set up title only to the one undivided half of the property in question, and that the title to such undivided half only is in dispute. Yet the order is for the sale of the entire estate. As the order is based on the sole ground of disputed title, the order to sell should be limited to the property in dispute. But should any portion of the property have been ordered to be sold? The same reason which induced the district court to refuse an order to sell the property free of incumbran-ces, to wit, that the incumbrances largely exceeded the value of the property, and that the general creditors had no interest in having the property sold, ought to have prevailed in this case. The property appears from the evidence to be worth only $1,000, and the incumbrances are three or four times that sum. The general creditors have no interest in the property, and the assignee no concern in bringing it to sale. And the fact that the title to property is in dispute is a good reason wdiy the court should be slow to order a sale, unless it be absolutely necessary to the proper administration of the bankrupt estate. The power to sell the estate of another simply on the ground that it is claimed by an assignee in bankruptcy, is a highhanded one. Whether a sale ordered by a bankrupt court in a summary proceeding, and solely on the ground that there is a dispute touching title of the property, can be called due process of law is, to my mind, very doubtful. Under this provision of law the claimant may be deprived of the realty of which he is in possession, asserting title simply because another person sets up title thereto. See Greene v. Briggs [Case No. 5,-764]; Hoke v. Henderson, 4 Dev. 15; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 146; Vanzant v. Waddel, 2 Yerg. 259; Bank of the State v. Cooper, Id. 599; Jones’ Heirs v. Perry, 10 Yerg. 59. At all events it seems clear that no court should exercise the power, except in cases of absolute necessity. As in this case there was no reason why the assignee should ásk a sale, the general creditors of the estate having no interest in the property, I am of opinion that the order of sale was improvidently made, and ought to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.