Bilafsky v. Abraham

• Decision Date: 22 May 1903
• Citation: 183 Mass. 401,67 N.E. 318
• Parties: BILAFSKY v. ABRAHAM.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

183 Mass. 401

67 N.E. 318

BILAFSKY v. ABRAHAM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 22, 1903

COUNSEL

Jesse

C. Ivy, for plaintiff.

Hiram P. Harriman, M. L. Lourie, and David Stoneman, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, C.J.

This is a suit in equity brought by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover property claimed as belonging to a bankrupt's estate.

The defense, so far as it is presented by the report before us grows out of the fact that the estate had once been closed under the provisions of the bankruptcy act of 1898, Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2, cl. 8, 30 Stat. 545, 546 [U. S. Comp St. 1901, p. 3421]. This clause gives the court jurisdiction as follows: 'To close estates whenever it appears that they have been fully administered, by approving the final accounts and discharging the trustee, and reopen them whenever it appears they were closed before being fully administered.' By a similar provision under clause 12 there is jurisdiction to 'discharge or refuse to discharge bankrupts, and set aside discharges and reinstate the cases.' Under the first of these clauses, after the expiration of more than two years an application was made to the referee by creditors of the bankrupt, setting forth the proceedings that had been taken in the court, and averring that the creditors recently had discovered certain claims against persons of good pecuniary responsibility, which belonged to the bankrupt's estate, and which appear upon the schedules, and which remain uncollected and undischarged and praying that the estate be reopened for further administration by the court. Upon this petition the estate was reopened, the plaintiff was appointed referee, and his bond was approved.

It is now contended by the defendant that section 11, clause d, of this statute, is a bar to the suit, because it provides that 'suits shall not be brought by or against a trustee of a bankrupt estate subsequent to two years after the estate has been closed.' The question is whether this provision is applicable to an estate which has been closed, under a misapprehension of the facts, before it was fully administered, and then reopened when that fact was subsequently made to appear. So far as we are aware, this question was never considered by any court prior to the time when it arose in this case. Presumably it was passed upon by the referee in bankruptcy, for the only ground stated in the petition for reopening the estate was the existence of these claims, which could be enforced only by a suit. The estate can be reopened only...