Court Opinion

ID: 8309439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:46:18.954338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:39.911820
License: Public Domain

Nelson, D. J.
I have examined this case, and find nothing new presented which can reverse the decision already made and set aside the order for a decree. The defendant Crawford proved his debt as an unsecured claim, and made affidavit to that effect in the form prescribed by law. Subsequently he issued execution on the judgment, pending the bankruptcy proceedings, and attempted to collect this claim, which was in judgment and a lien upon real estate at the time, as he now insists, when he made and filed his proof. If he was a creditor having a lien, by proving his debt secured thereby to the full amount he waives his lien, and relinquishes it. Such has been the ruling even in respect to mortgages upon specific property. Before a secured creditor can prove his full claim as an unsecured debt he must surrender the security. There is no distinction made in the kind of security. 1 B. R. 485, 400, 147; 8 B. R. 241. Crawford could have refused to prove his debt or appear in the bankruptcy court, and looked to the lien which he claims his judgment gave him; and unless the assignee took action and assumed control of the property on which the lien attached, might have subjected it to the discharge of his debt. But he did not do this. He acted upon the theory that he could prove his debt as unsecured, and at the same time enforce the lien which the judgment gave him. There is no support for such a claim. 95 U. S. 764.
The complainant’s equity is superior, and the order for a decree must stand.