Court Opinion

ID: 9444740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:10:27.359525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:59.193012
License: Public Domain

LINDLEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that appellants, respondents below, waived jurisdiction over their persons, as pointed out by the majority. In other words, had there been no such waiver, they, being adverse claimants of. funds in their possession, would have been entitled to have their rights determined in a plenary suit brought by the trustee, not summarily. But the record discloses, as the majority says, that any objection to summary jurisdiction was waived; it follows that the district court had jurisdiction of the persons and the subject matter.
But I part company with my brethren when they conclude that the order adjudging the moneys to be those of' the trustees in reorganization was correct. *495No evidence was submitted. The district court had before it nothing justifying an adjudication that the lien alleged to exist was in fact void. Yet it proceeded, without evidence, to enter a final judgment. This, it seems to me, was obvious error. I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause for trial to determine, upon evidence, the controverted issue of whether appellants had a valid lien upon the funds in question.