Brown v. Freedman
Decision Date | 04 March 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 3742.,3742. |
Citation | 125 F.2d 151 |
Parties | BROWN v. FREEDMAN. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Joseph B. Wolbarsht, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Arthur J. Santry, of Boston, Mass. (Frederick Fish, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, MAHONEY, and WOODBURY, JJ.
This is an appeal under Section 24, sub. a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 47, sub. a, from an order of the District Court affirming an order of a referee in bankruptcy sustaining a petition to reclaim and repossess certain machinery, and directing the defendant named therein, the appellant here, as trustee in bankruptcy of the International Chewing Gum Company, to turn over the proceeds of the sale thereof to the appellee.1
The appellee Freedman, the petitioner below, is a member of the Massachusetts Bar. In 1937, and for some years prior thereto, he was counsel for the National Chicle Company, a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing chewing gum. In the course of his duties he became very friendly with that corporation's vice-president and sales manager, one Alvin S. Livingston. In 1937 the National Chicle Company became involved in financial difficulties; an attempt to reorganize it under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S.C.A. § 207, failed; an order of liquidation was entered against it; and on July 17 of that year its machinery and assets were sold at public auction. At this sale Freedman purchased the machinery of the bankrupt for $20,460.30, and this is the property which in this proceeding he seeks to reclaim and repossess.
It appears that Freedman's purchase was made at the instance of Livingston, who wished to continue in the gum manufacturing business, and that it was made in accordance with an understanding between Freedman and Livingston whereby each was to contribute approximately $5,000 to a new corporation which they were to form for the purpose of entering the gum candy business. Accordingly on July 20, 1937, Freedman formed a Massachusetts corporation called the International Chewing Gum Company (it will be referred to hereafter simply as the Company) with Livingston as president and treasurer and himself as counsel. As organized the Company's directors were Livingston, one Phillips, who subsequently became the Company's manufacturing superintendent, and Miss Madaline Dunne who was Freedman's secretary.
The Company began business operations on the premises in Cambridge formerly occupied by the defunct National Chicle Company, and Freedman, without ever having removed his machinery from those premises, permitted the Company to use it. From time to time as need arose, Livingston and Freedman made cash advances to the Company, which eventually totalled approximately $12,000. At first these advances were listed on the Company's books as debts, but eventually, to conform with the original understanding of the parties, these entries were changed and stock in the Company was issued in payment therefor.
In view of the issues raised by this appeal, we quote the actual words used by the referee to describe the events which followed.
"Even such evidence offered by the respondent as was undisputed did not, in my opinion, disprove the petitioner's contention that the machinery in question was merely loaned and not donated to the corporation as a capital contribution."
The appellant contends in substance that on the evidence in the record it must be found that Freedman turned his machinery over to the Company not as a loan but as a capital contribution, and that even if he did not do so, established rules of law prevent him from now being heard to contend otherwise. Specifically, the points upon which the appellant relies in this appeal are that neither the referee's findings of fact nor his order are supported either by the evidence or the weight of the evidence; that the referee's conclusions of law are erroneous; that his failure to report any findings at all on eight specified issues advanced by the appellant "manifests a patent misconception" of the issues before him; that his characterization of Livingston as the "chief witness for the respondent herein" indicates "a distorted emphasis of the testimony adduced by the appellant"; that the referee erred in rejecting seven specified "contentions of law and fact" advanced by the appellant; and that he committed five errors, also specified, in admitting, and one error in excluding, testimony. As to the District Court, the points relied upon are that its order confirming the order of the referee "constituted an affirmation of the errors of the referee herein specified"; and that it also erred in affirming the order of the referee and in failing to order that the petition be dismissed.
Counsel for the appellant, both in his brief and in argument before us, evinces a misconception of the scope of judicial review in cases of this sort. In his brief he says that the District Court "may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Friedman v. Kurker
...Co. v. The Mayfair, Inc., 287 Mass. 280, 191 N.E. 430 (1934); see especially discussion at 288 et seq. 6 Compare Brown v. Freedman, 125 F.2d 151, 156 (1st Cir. 1942), where advances not claimed as loans were treated as sufficient to prevent a bankrupt's capitalization from being treated as ......
-
In re Mid-West Tar Products Corp., 10494.
...the corporation, and subject to be applied to the satisfaction of its liabilities generally." 3 F.2d at page 871. See also Brown v. Freedman, 1 Cir., 125 F.2d 151. Nor did the inclusion of the stock in the balance sheet of Mid-West sent by Thorn to the Chicago bank and to Consumers show con......