Wharton v. Farmers & Merchants Bank

Decision Date05 May 1941
Docket NumberNo. 11814.,11814.
PartiesWHARTON et al. v. FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK OF GREEN RIDGE, MO., et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

S. W. James, Jr., of Jefferson City, Mo., for appellants.

D. C. Chastain, of Butler, Mo., and W. W. Blain, of Sedalia, Mo., (A. Z. Patterson and Gardner Smith, both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.

Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The question for determination in this case is whether the appellants are entitled to have administered, under § 75, sub. s of the Bankruptcy Act 11 U.S.C.A. § 203, sub. s, farm lands, formerly owned by them, as to which their bankruptcy proceedings were dismissed on November 23, 1938.1

The facts are not in dispute. The appellants are farmer-debtors who owned 450 acres of farm lands in Pettis County, Missouri. On September 23, 1937 they filed a petition for a composition or extension of their debts under § 75, subs. a to r of the Bankruptcy Act 11 U.S.C.A. § 203, subs. a to r. Their petition was approved, but they failed to effect a composition, and on December 20, 1937, on an amended petition filed that day, they were adjudged bankrupts under § 75, sub. s. On June 23, 1938, the appellee Union Central Life Insurance Company, a secured creditor of the debtors, which had a first lien upon a 210-acre tract of their farm lands, under a deed of trust which contained a power of sale in case of default, and also had a first lien upon another tract of 120 acres of their farm lands, under a similar deed of trust, filed a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings as to these tracts, on the ground that there was no reasonable hope of the financial rehabilitation of the debtors and that their proceedings were not instituted in good faith. On July 1, 1938, the appellee Farmers and Merchants Bank of Green Ridge, Missouri, also a secured creditor of the debtors, which had a first lien upon a 60-acre tract of their farm lands under a deed of trust containing a power of sale in case of default, and a second lien, under a similar deed of trust, upon so much of the farm lands as were subject to the deeds of trust held by the Union Central Life Insurance Company, filed a similar motion to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings as to the tracts upon which the Bank had liens. After a hearing, and on November 23, 1938, the court below entered orders dismissing the bankruptcy proceedings as to the lands of the debtors which were subject to the deeds of trust held by the Insurance Company and by the Bank, on the ground that the debtors were "beyond all reasonable hope of financial rehabilitation" and that the proceedings would have no effect "beyond postponing inevitable liquidation." The court, in making its orders, relied upon the decisions of this Court in Cowherd v. Phœnix Joint Stock Land Bank, 8 Cir., 99 F.2d 225, and Bender v. Federal Farm Mortgage Corp., 8 Cir., 99 F.2d 252. Those decisions were based upon the case of Wright v. Vinton Branch, 300 U.S. 440, on page 462, 57 S.Ct. 556, on page 562, 81 L.Ed. 736, 112 A.L.R. 1455, in which, in a footnote the Supreme Court had said: "The offer of composition must be in good faith * * *, and if the debtor is beyond all reasonable hope of financial rehabilitation, and the proceedings under section 75 cannot be expected to have any effect beyond postponing inevitable liquidation, the proceedings will be halted at the outset."

The purpose of the orders of dismissal entered by the court below was to enable the holders of the deeds of trust above referred to, which were in default, to foreclose. The debtors opposed the entry of the orders, but took no appeal. The holders of the deeds of trust, in reliance upon the orders of November 23, 1938, foreclosed their deeds of trust through trustees' sales, in accordance with the laws of Missouri. (§ 3063, R.S.Mo., 1929, Mo.St.Ann. § 3063, p. 1892.) The powers of sale in the deeds of trust held by the Union Central Life Insurance Company were exercised on December 31, 1938, and at the sale the Company became the purchaser of the 210-acre tract and the 120-acre tract covered by its deeds of trust. The power of sale in the deed of trust held by the Farmers and Merchants Bank was exercised on January 27, 1939, and at the sale it bought the 60-acre tract covered by the deed of trust held by it. The Insurance Company shortly thereafter sold the 210-acre tract bid in by it to a stranger to the bankruptcy proceedings. It has not sold the 120-acre tract. The Bank still retains the 60-acre tract bid in by it at foreclosure sale.

The Supreme Court of the United States, on December 4, 1939, decided the case of John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bartels, 308 U.S. 180, 60 S.Ct. 221, 84 L.Ed. 176. Its decision had the effect of overruling the decisions of this Court upon which the court below had relied in dismissing the debtors' lands from the bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that lack of a reasonable probability of financial rehabilitation of a farmer-debtor would not justify a dismissal of proceedings under § 75. Thereafter, on March 4, 1940, the debtors here, with leave of court, moved that the orders of dismissal entered November 23, 1938, be vacated. The court on May 4, 1940, denied their motion upon the ground that it came too late. It is from the order denying their motion that they have appealed.

The holders of the deeds of trust concededly perfected their foreclosures long prior to March 4, 1940, and the 210-acre tract acquired by the Insurance Company under foreclosure had been resold to a stranger to the bankruptcy proceedings, for value. Obviously with respect to that tract, there could be no effective reinstatement of the bankruptcy proceedings. Stensrud v. Federal Land Bank, 8 Cir., 114 F.2d 1002. The debatable question in this case is whether the debtors were entitled to a reinstatement of the bankruptcy proceedings with respect to the portions of the farm lands still in the hands of the Insurance Company and the Bank.

The orders of dismissal of November 23, 1938, were erroneous, but not void. Stensrud v. Federal Land Bank, 8 Cir., 114 F.2d 1002; Peterson v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 116 F. 2d 148; Union Joint Stock Land Bank v. Byerly, 310 U.S. 1, 5-8, 60 S.Ct. 773, 84 L. Ed. 1041; Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 376-377, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329; McWilliams v. Blackard, 8 Cir., 96 F.2d 43,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Kimm v. Cox
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 8 Septiembre 1942
    ...57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557; Sandusky v. First National Bank, 23 Wall. 289, 90 U.S. 289, 292, 293, 23 L.Ed. 155; Wharton v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, May 5, 1941, 119 F.2d 487 this Court; Mulligan v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha, April 9, 1942, 129 F.2d 438 this Court; Wharton v. Farmers & Mer......
  • Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Reisley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 22 Enero 1946
    ...an appeal therefrom. 3 Bankruptcy Act § 1(9), 11 U.S.C.A. § 1(9). 4 Kimm v. Cox, 8 Cir., 130 F.2d 721, 732, 733; Wharton v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 487. See also the cases cited in footnote 2, 5 Cf. Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232, 64 S.Ct. 1015, 88 L.Ed. 1246. 6 Pfiste......
  • Texlon Corp., In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 20 Abril 1979
    ...the rights of the opposing party as they stood when the original judgment was rendered, see, E. g., Wharton v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Green Ridge, 119 F.2d 487, 489 (8 Cir. 1941); In re Technical Marine Maintenance Co., 169 F.2d 548, 553 (3 Cir. 1948). Almost by definition it cannot be......
  • Matter of Shaffer
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 20 Enero 1981
    ...panel found added support in Matter of Technical Marine Maintenance Company, 169 F.2d 548 (3d Cir. 1948) and Wharton v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 119 F.2d 487 (8th Cir. 1941), both of which involved the "out of time" review of ex parte orders. The panel concluded that the extension of credi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Objective and Jurisdictional Origins of Chapter 11's Good Faith Filing Requirement.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 96 No. 1, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...A possibility of reorganization must exist to meet the test of good faith."). (16) Wharton v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Green Ridge, 119 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1941) (explaining that "[t]he Supreme Court ruled that lack of a reasonable probability of financial rehabilitation of a far......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT