Bowman v. Lopereno, No. 59

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtROBERTS
Citation85 L.Ed. 177,311 U.S. 262,61 S.Ct. 201
Decision Date09 December 1940
Docket NumberNo. 59
PartiesBOWMAN v. LOPERENO et al

311 U.S. 262
61 S.Ct. 201
85 L.Ed. 177
BOWMAN

v.

LOPERENO et al.

No. 59.
Submitted on Briefs Nov. 20, 1940.
Decided Dec. 9, 1940.

Mr. Llewellyn A. Luce, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

No appearance for respondents.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole question for decision is whether the Circuit Court of Appeals property dismissed as untimely an appeal from an order made by a District Court sitting in bankruptcy.

The proceeding was initiated by the petitioner, hereinafter spoken of as the debtor, in the District Court, for

Page 263

an extension under § 74 of the Bankruptcy Act as amended.1 The petition, filed May 23, 1935, was referred to a referee, who denied it July 26, 1935. May 15, 1936, the court, on petition for review, re-referred the cause to a referee, who, on August 19, 1936, filed his certificate with the court in which he concluded: 'I therefore recommend that the proposal or proposals of the debtor for an extension under § 74 of the Bankruptcy Act be not confirmed, and that the debtor be adjudicated a bankrupt.'

August 21, 1936, the District Court, reciting the referee's recommendation, made an order adjudicating the debtor a bankrupt and again referring the cause to the referee for further proceedings in bankruptcy.

August 28, 1936, the debtor prayed a review and the referee certified the matter to the court. In the petition for review both the action of the referee in reporting his recommendations instead of granting or dismissing the petition for extension, and the action of the court on the referee's report adjudicating the debtor a bankrupt, were challenged. September 10, 1936, the debtor filed a petition for rehearing of the order of adjudication, praying that it be vacated and the cause reheard. October 14, 1936, motion was filed by the debtor, after due notice to the parties in interest, praying that the order of adjudication be vacated and the proceeding dismissed without prejudice.

October 16, 1936, a district judge heard the motion for rehearing and the motion to vacate the adjudication and entered an order that the entire matter of the debtor's petition for extension which was re-referred to the referee May 15, 1936, be again re-referred to him with direction to hear and consider the petition for extension and any supplemental petition, and to make an order or orders

Page 264

thereon as provided by the Act and the General Orders, and continuing: 'it is further ordered that all proceedings herein, other than those hereinabove ordered, and particularly any further proceedings under the Adjudication and Order of Reference under Section 74 entered on August 21st, 1936, be stayed until the further order of this Court made by a Judge thereof.' It will be observed that the court did not finally dispose of the petition and motion so far as they were directed to the adjudication of the debtor.

Proceedings on a supplemental proposal of extension were had before the referee from time to time and eventuated, on June 14, 1937, in an order denying the petition for extension. The debtor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 practice notes
  • Maryland Tuna Corporation v. Ms Benares, No. 421
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 2 Junio 1970
    ...etc., supra, 303 F.2d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 1962); 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 204.12 1, at 951. 9 See, e. g., Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262, 266, 61 S.Ct. 201, 85 L.Ed. 177 (1940); United States v. Seminole Nation, 299 U.S. 417, 421, 57 S.Ct. 283, 81 L.Ed. 316 (1937); Morse v. Un......
  • Safeway Stores v. Coe, No. 8206.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 29 Mayo 1943
    ...which is considered on its merits also suspends the time. It is true that this has been said recently in two cases. Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262, 266, 61 S.Ct. 201, 203, 85 L.Ed. 177; Pfister v. Northern Illinois Finance Corp., 317 U.S. 144, 63 S.Ct. 133, 87 L.Ed. ___. In the former the......
  • Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., No. 3797.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 14 Diciembre 1942
    ...Co. v. Murphy, supra, 111 U.S. at page 489, 4 S.Ct. 497, 28 L.Ed. 492; United States v. Seminole Nation, supra; Bowman v. Lopereno, 1940, 311 U.S. 262, 266, 61 S.Ct. 201, 85 L.Ed. 177; Payne v. Garth, 8 Cir., 1922, 285 F. 301, 309. When the published rules of the court permit the filing of ......
  • Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. I.C.C., Nos. 83-2290
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 12 Julio 1985
    ...A decision on the merits of the motion for reconsideration could extend the time period for seeking appellate review. Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262, 61 S.Ct. 201, 85 L.Ed. 177 (1940). The majority, however, never reaches this I thus disagree with the conclusion that the October 20, 1982 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
50 cases
  • Maryland Tuna Corporation v. Ms Benares, No. 421
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 2 Junio 1970
    ...etc., supra, 303 F.2d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 1962); 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 204.12 1, at 951. 9 See, e. g., Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262, 266, 61 S.Ct. 201, 85 L.Ed. 177 (1940); United States v. Seminole Nation, 299 U.S. 417, 421, 57 S.Ct. 283, 81 L.Ed. 316 (1937); Morse v. Un......
  • Safeway Stores v. Coe, No. 8206.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 29 Mayo 1943
    ...which is considered on its merits also suspends the time. It is true that this has been said recently in two cases. Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262, 266, 61 S.Ct. 201, 203, 85 L.Ed. 177; Pfister v. Northern Illinois Finance Corp., 317 U.S. 144, 63 S.Ct. 133, 87 L.Ed. ___. In the former the......
  • Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., No. 3797.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 14 Diciembre 1942
    ...Co. v. Murphy, supra, 111 U.S. at page 489, 4 S.Ct. 497, 28 L.Ed. 492; United States v. Seminole Nation, supra; Bowman v. Lopereno, 1940, 311 U.S. 262, 266, 61 S.Ct. 201, 85 L.Ed. 177; Payne v. Garth, 8 Cir., 1922, 285 F. 301, 309. When the published rules of the court permit the filing of ......
  • Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. I.C.C., Nos. 83-2290
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 12 Julio 1985
    ...A decision on the merits of the motion for reconsideration could extend the time period for seeking appellate review. Bowman v. Loperena, 311 U.S. 262, 61 S.Ct. 201, 85 L.Ed. 177 (1940). The majority, however, never reaches this I thus disagree with the conclusion that the October 20, 1982 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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