Court Opinion

ID: 9419357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:49:04.414743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:17.652597
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Black,
dissenting:
I cannot agree that this case should be summarily remanded. In June, 1941, the District filed an application for composition of its debts. The petitioners here filed a motion to dismiss, which was overruled. They appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, making contentions which that court found to be “technical in the extreme.” Kelley v. Everglades Drainage District, 127 F. 2d 808, 809. When the case came back before the Circuit Court of Appeals in the instant proceedings, that court found from the entire record that these petitioners had by “unfounded and extremely technical contentions . ,. . sought to obstruct the plan.” 132 F. 2d 742, 744, 745.
Reversal for more findings means still further delay in bringing about what is undoubtedly a much needed financial reorganization. While I am certain that the *423courts below could couch their findings in different and more words, I am by no means sure they could set out with greater clarity their conclusion that the evidence shows both groups of bondholders to have been accorded fair and equitable treatment. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals was made with full appreciation and after full consideration of the issues, the evidence, and the District Court’s findings. Under these circumstances, I should prefer to deny certiorari, but since the Court has determined to grant review, I think we should not dispose of the case without first giving the parties an opportunity to argue the issues. On the record as I now see it, the findings were abundantly adequate, and the conclusion of the Circuit Court of Appeals was correct.