Court Opinion

ID: 9643792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:40:44.30405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:03.936740
License: Public Domain

CHASE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I agree that the appellant was entitled to have his executory contract either affirmed or disaffirmed and that in the latter event he would have been a creditor entitled to be treated as such so long as the terms of the plan of arrangement remained open. But he failed to appeal from the order confirming the debtor’s arrangement. Its provisions have, therefore, now become binding upon him just as they have upon all other creditors and upon the debtor. There has been no deposit for any claim for damages *885resulting from the rejection of his executory contract to be distributed under Sec. 369 of the statute and the so-called excess deposit is payable under the terms of the arrangement to the attorneys for the debt- or. It seems to me clear on this record that, in his zeal to force an adoption of his executory contract, the appellant failed to preserve the substance of his alternative rights as a claimant for damages by reason of its rejection. In order to share further than he has already in the confirmed arrangement, ■the terms of that will have to be modified and, if the appellant has, indeed, already accepted the payment of the claim allowed him under that plan he is now estopped upon remand from attacking its other provisions including, of course, the one making any express deposit payable to the attorneys for the debtor. Smith v. Morris, 3 Cir., 69 F.2d 3.
I would affirm on the ground that the arrangement as confirmed has finaUy fixed the rights of the parties.