Court Opinion

ID: 9824813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:29:04.741949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:08.275465
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
It now appears that, under the practice in bankruptcy cases, the referee’s adjudication that plaintiff’s claim was void for usury was not superseded by the petition to the judge for review ; and it seems that the finding of the referee should be held to be a judgment, and final, unless set aside upon review by the judge, or appealed, at least in the absence of an order which could operate as a supersedeas. There is error in the former opinion on this point. As to this see 1 Remington on Bankruptcy, sec. 1772, p. 1077; In re Home Discount Co. (D. C.) 147 Fed. 538, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 168.
It further appears at this time that it was not necessary to the finality and effectiveness of such adjudication (shown by the certificate of the referee on file in the bankruptcy case) *718to support a plea of res judicata that the referee’s order should have been entered in some manner in some book of judgments; and there is error in the former opinion on this point. As to this, and as to the effect of such adjudications in general, see Collier on Bankruptcy (9th Ed.) 622; Id., 448 (subdivision “d” of section 21 of the national Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 551 [U. S. Comp. St. 1913, sec. 9605]); Id., 462; 1 Remington on Bankruptcy, sec. 1086, p. 615; Henderson v. Denious, 186 Fed. 100, 108 C. C. A. 212, 26 Am. Bankr. Rep. 226; McMahon v. Pithan (Iowa) 147 N. W. 920, 33 Am. Bankr. Rep. 125; In re Dempster, 172 Fed. 355, 97 C. C. A. 51, 22 Am. Bankr. Rep. 751; Evans v. Rounsaville, 115 a. 684, 42 S. E. 100, 8 Ab. Bankr. Rep. 236; Smalley v. Laugenour, 196 U. S. 93, 25 Sup. Ct. 216, 49 L. Ed. 400, 13 Am. Bankr. Rep. 692; In re Tiffany (D. C.) 133 Fed. 799, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 296; In re Skinner (D. C.) 97 Fed. 190, 3 Am. Bankr. Rep. 163; Clendening v. Red River Valley Nat. Bank, 12 N. D. 51, 94 N. W. 901, 11 Am. Bankr. Rep. 245; Whitney or Trustee v. Wenman, 198 U. S. 539, 25 Sup. Ct. 778, 49 L. Ed. 1157, 14 Am. Bankr. Rep. 45; In re Granite City Bank, 137 Fed. 818, 70 C. C. A. 316, 14 Am. Bankr. Rep. 404; Thomas v. Woods, 173 Fed. 585, 97 C. C. A. 535, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1180; 19 Ann. Cas. 1080, 23 Am. Bankr. Rep. 132; In re Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co., 122 Fed. 232, 58 C. C. A. 596, 10 Am. Bankr. Rep. 225; Hull v. Burr, 62 Fla. 440, 57 South, 616; Id., 64 Fla. 83, 59 South. 787, 28 Am. aBnkr. Rep. 837; Slaughter v. L. & N. Ry Co., 125 Tenn. 292, 143 S. W. 603, 27 Am. Bankr. Rep. 570.
The case of Walker et al. v. McKemie, ante, 145 Pac. 359, is in harmony with, and perhaps tends to support, the foregoing view. ■
In all other respects, we think there should be adherence to the views expressed in the former opinion. In this connection it may be observed that E. T. Browning was a party to the bankruptcy proceedings. He was the petitioning creditor who caused Charles De Watteville to be adjudged a bankrupt.' And *719this seems to show an additional reason for holding the adjudication there mutual in binding effect upon the plaintiff and E. T. Browning, although we do not mean to intimate any such reason is necessary to sustain the conclusion reached in the former opinion as to the right of the defendants to plead that adjudication as against the plaintiff’s action here.
As strengthening the. view expressed in the former opinion as to the sufficiency of the pleadings, not otherwise attacked, to show such an interest in the property as entitles the defendants to prove a former adjudication, we direct attention to the case of First Bank of Texola v. Terrell, post, 145 Pac. 1140, in which it is shown that an objection to evidence upon the ground that pleadings not otherwise attacked are not sufficient to state a cause of action or ground of defense is not favored, and, “unless there is a total failure to allege some matters essential to the relief sought, * * * should seldom, if ever, be sustained when the allegations are simply incomplete, indefinite, or conclusions of law.”
By the Court: It is so ordered.