Court Opinion

ID: 9443676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:27:05.852604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:34.000131
License: Public Domain

SANBORN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree that the rights of Gillespie under the plan of reorganization of the Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad Company were not cut off by the “bar order” in suit and that the judgment appealed from must be reversed. The cases of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-320, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865, and City of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 344 U.S. 293, 73 S.Ct. 299, require a ruling that as to Gillespie, a bondholder of the railroad with a listed last known address and whose bonds were on deposit in the reorganization proceedings, service of the “bar order” by publication alone was inadequate. I think it is unnecessary to consider what efforts should or might have been made to find Gillespie and notify him of the order. Lack of adequate notice is determinative of the case.