336 F.2d 144 (8th Cir. 1964), 17584, Nicklaus v. Bank of Russellville

Docket Nº:17584.
Citation:336 F.2d 144
Party Name:G. L. NICKLAUS, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Bronson Woodworth, Inc., Bankrupt, Appellant, v. BANK OF RUSSELLVILLE, Appellee.
Case Date:September 08, 1964
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 144

336 F.2d 144 (8th Cir. 1964)

G. L. NICKLAUS, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Bronson Woodworth, Inc., Bankrupt, Appellant,



No. 17584.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Sept. 8, 1964

Page 145

D. D. Panich, Little Rock, Ark., made argument for appellant and filed brief.

Robert H. Williams, of Williams & Gardner, Russellville, Ark., made argument for appellee and Williams & Gardner, Russellville, Ark., filed brief.

Before VOGEL, MATTHES and RIDGE, Circuit Judges.

RIDGE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying the petition of appellant, the Trustee in Bankruptcy of Bronson Woodworth, Inc., praying the District Court to rescind its order entered in a criminal proceeding-- whereby certain negotiable bonds were ordered into the possession of appellee, the ostensible owner thereof, after conviction of Bronson Woodworth, an individual, for fraud perpetrated against appellee; and for refusal of that Court to restrain and enjoin appellee and the Chancery Court of Pope County, Arkansas, from further prosecution of a civil action pending before it-- to establish ownership of the above-mentioned bonds, and a constructive trust in relation to certain money fraudulently obtained by Bronson Woodworth, individually, which are now on deposit in the registry of that State Court. The opinion of District Judge Young, denying appellant's petition ante, is recorded in D.C., 229 F.Supp. at 262.

To avoid repetitious statements of fact, we think there are certain matters that must be noticed which appear in the record before us and from the opinion of Judge Young ante: First, the res giving rise to this litigation is manifestly tainted with fraud. Secondly, a non-subsistent matter appears on the face of the record of this case,-- the absence of which we deem fatal to appellant's claim of error on the part of the District Court as here made. Without going into detail, it is apparent from the operative facts stated in Judge Young's opinion, supra, that Bronson Woodworth, Inc., appellant's bankrupt, could not possibly claim the property or right of property here to be considered, as appellant does. On the contrary, it appears as an undisputed fact in this case that the fraud for which Bronson Woodworth, individually, was convicted is recognized by all parties as having been perpetrated solely against appellee, the Bank of...

To continue reading