Court Opinion

ID: 8636721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:46:28.073571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:57.171974
License: Public Domain

LOWELL, District Judge.
The petitioning creditor, Mr. Huntington, was placed in a difficult position. He found on the records a deed of trust for the bankrupt’s creditors, from which his notes appeared to be studiously omitted; and while he held debts sufficient in amount to enable him to make his debtor a bankrupt, and thus to avoid this preference, he could not multiply himself to make up the number now somewhat oppressively required by the statute. The case illustrates the serious obstacles which congress has lately interposed to shield a fraudulent debtor.
The courts, however, endeavoring to give the statute a reasonable construction, have held that creditors who have been preferred shall not count in estimating number or value, so that the petitioning creditor’s arrangement to increase the number was perhaps unnecessary in this particular case. I have so held within a week past. In re Currier [Case No. 3,492].
When it comes to proof of debts at the first meeting, it turns out that the secured creditors all disclaim their security, and deny that they had ever accepted it. Now, although our law presumes the assent of creditors in such a case, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, yet there can be no doubt that they may dissent; and it would never do to permit a debtor to close the door of the first meeting against some of his creditors by giving them security behind their backs, and holding them to a presumed consent which they have never given. The opposing creditor suspects that these gentlemen might have taken up a different position if the two months had run out before a petition was filed. But I must decide by the sworn evidence, which gives no countenance to such a suspicion. Upon the evidence these creditors are neither secured nor preferred.
The case of Johonnot himself is different. He was at once a creditor and a trustee, and by receiving delivery of the deed as trustee without qualification, he assented to it as creditor. He swears not only that the deed was never acted on, but that it was abandoned before the petition was filed. Under these circumstances, I think he should be permitted to prove, even at the first meeting, upon making and delivering to the register for the use of the assignee, when appointed, a deed of the lands included in the conveyance.
I have before decided, for reasons satisfactory to my own mind, that security may, in many cases, be renounced and surrendered by a creditor at the first meeting. I am aware that there have been decisions to the contrary, founded upon the words of the statute, which says a surrender may be made to the assignee. But since a creditor, by proving his debt, ipso facto surrenders his security, and since a vote at the first meeting is often of much more importance than a piece of worthless security, I am not prepared to admit that a creditor who wishes to exercise this right is precluded by the permissive language of the statute, authorizing him to release to an assignee what he conclusively abandons by the mere proof of his debt. To guard against misapprehension, I have always required that a positive surrender or release, or whatever else the case might require, should be made.
The second question is, whether the three notes held by Messrs. Fairbank, Fish, and Gill, respectively, can be voted on separately in the choice of an assignee. Notwithstanding the form that was gone through of handing these notes to their present holders as collateral security, I think the fair result of all the evidence is, that they are merely agents of Mr. Huntinaton; and while it is true as a general proposition that one who *526could sue a debt in his own name may prove it in his own name, yet I am of opinion that an agent holding negotiable paper, for the mere purpose of proof, cannot prove it, under objection, excepting in the name and for the benefit of the real owner. See, In re Lane [Case No. 8,043].
On the third point, I am of opinion that the holder of a note overdue, making due affidavit as required by the statute, makes out his prima facie case, subject to the discretion of the register and court to order further proof, and to the right of any creditor or person interested to offer counter proof. In a great many cases, perhaps in a majority, the creditor has no personal knowledge of the facts, and his affidavit would not be of the slightest value ifi any court of justice upon any issue involving those facts. But I never heard it suggested that a creditor is to be prepared or obliged, by the mere interposition of an objection, to produce such evidence as would be necessary at an ordinary trial of those facts. It is not too much to say that the bankrupt law would break down under the strain that such a necessity would put upon creditors. Order accordingly.