Baylor v. 1775 BROADWAY CORPORATION

• Decision Date: 20 December 1944
• Docket Number: No. 75.,75.
• Citation: Baylor v. 1775 BROADWAY CORPORATION, 146 F.2d 487 (2nd Cir. 1944)
• Parties: BAYLOR v. 1775 BROADWAY CORPORATION et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

146 F.2d 487 (1944)

BAYLOR v. 1775 BROADWAY CORPORATION et al.

No. 75.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 20, 1944.

Theodore T. Baylor, of New York City, pro se.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, of New York City (F. Sims McGrath and Charles Trynin, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In a proceeding for reorganization of 1775 Broadway Corporation commenced in 1935, the appellant, as attorney for a creditor holding $10,000 of the debtor's notes, objected to the inclusion in the proposed plan of reorganization of a provision releasing the trustee under an indenture securing holders of the debtor's notes from liability to noteholders. The appellant also conducted a short examination of the indenture trustee. The release provision was deleted from the plan approved by the district court and its order was affirmed on appeal. In re 1775 Broadway Corporation, 79 F.2d 108. For his services in the 77B, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207, proceeding the appellant was awarded and paid $2500. The plan of reorganization was consummated and in January 1937 a final order was entered closing the proceeding. Thereafter Broadway & 58th Street Corporation, successor to the debtor's assets and liabilities, prosecuted an action against the indenture trustee and obtained a judgment which was settled in June 1943 for approximately $1,275,000. Shortly thereafter, in January 1944, the appellant moved to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding in order that he might apply for additional compensation. He contends that but for his opposition to the release the successor corporation could not have made its large recovery; that his examination of the trustee supplied information beneficial to the successor corporation in its litigation; and that until the settlement was obtained no one could know how valuable were his services in the 77B proceeding; therefore, he says, the proceeding should be reopened and he...