Canute Co v. Pittsburgh West Virginia Coal Co 12 15, 1923

• Decision Date: 12 November 1923
• Docket Number: No. 72,72
• Citation: 263 U.S. 244,68 L.Ed. 287,44 S.Ct. 67
• Parties: CANUTE S. S. CO., Limited, et al. v. PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA COAL CO. et al. Argued Oct. 12-15, 1923
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

263 U.S. 244

44 S.Ct. 67

68 L.Ed. 287

CANUTE S. S. CO., Limited, et al.

v PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA COAL CO. et al.

No. 72.

Argued Oct. 12-15, 1923.

Decided Nov. 12, 1923.

Mr. Charles R. Hickox, of New York City, for petitioners.

Messrs. Thomas F. Barrett, of Clarksburg, W. Va., and Theodore Kiendl, of New York City, for respondents.

Mr. Justice SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves an adjudication in bankruptcy made under an involuntary petition which was opposed by intervening creditors.

In February, 1921, three of the respondents, the Pittsburgh & West Virginia Coal Company and two other coal companies, filed in a Federal District Court in New York a petition for the involuntary bankruptcy of the Diamond Fuel Company, alleging that it was insolvent and had committed an act of bankruptcy within four months prior thereto, and that they were creditors having provable claims against it. The petition was regular and sufficient on its face. The Fuel Company answered, denying that it was insolvent or had committed an act of bankruptcy, or that the Pittsburgh Company, one of the petitioners, was its creditor and had a provable claim against it.

In September, 1921, more than nine months after the date of the alleged act of bankruptcy, before any further proceedings had been had other than the appointment of a receiver, two other creditors of the Fuel Company by leave of the court intervened in the proceeding and joined as petitioning creditors in the petition for bankruptcy. Eleven days thereafter the present petitioners, the Canute Steamship Co., Ltd., and Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar, hereinafter called the opposing creditors, being creditors of the Fuel Company claiming to have acquired a lien upon its funds by attachment proceedings instituted within four months before the filing of the original petition, by leave of the court likewise intervened in the proceeding in opposition to the petition for bankruptcy, and filed answers denying its averments in like manner as in the answer of the Fuel Company.

On the hearing before the District Court on pleadings and proof, the Fuel Company withdrew its answer and consented to an adjudication. The case was then heard on the issues raised by the answers of the opposing creditors. The District Judge intimating, but not determining, that by reason of certain matters not necessary to be recited, the opposing creditors were estopped from denying that the Pittsburgh Company was a creditor, held that, independently of this question, any defect of parties which might otherwise have resulted was cured by the joinder of the two intervening creditors having valid claims; and, finding that the allegations of the petition for bankruptcy were otherwise sustained by the proof, an order was entered adjudging the Fuel Company a bankrupt. Upon appeal by the opposing creditors, the Circuit Court of Appeals, assuming, but not deciding, that the Pittsburgh Company was not a creditor, nevertheless affirmed the order of adjudication on the ground that the question of its claim was immaterial in view of the joinder of the intervening petitioners supplying the requisite number of creditors. In re Diamond Fuel Co., 283 Fed. 108.

The opposing creditors contend that this was error upon the ground that under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act (30 Stat. 544 [Comp. St. §§ 9585-9656]), the petition in bankruptcy could not properly be sustained except upon a finding that the Pitts burgh Company was a creditor of the Fuel Company having a provable claim against it, so as to make up the required number of three original petitioners entitled to maintain the petition; and that, in the absence of such finding, this lack could not be cured by the joinder of the other petitioning creditors more than four months after the commission of the act of bankruptcy.

The pertinent provisions of the Act are these: Section 3b (section 9587) provides that a petition may be filed against a person who is insolvent and has committed an act of bankruptcy within the preceding four months; Section 59b (section 9643), that three or more creditors who have provable claims against any person of a specified aggregate amount—or if all the creditors of such person are less than twelve in number, then one of such creditors whose claim equals the specified amount—may file a petition to have him adjudged a bankrupt; and Section 59f, that

'Creditors other than original petitioners may at any time enter their appearance and join in the petition, or file an answer and be heard in opposition to the prayer of the petition.'

It was not averred in the petition for bankruptcy that the creditors of the Fuel Company were less than twelve in number; nor is this claimed. And no question is made as to the aggregate amount of the claims involved.

The argument in behalf of the opposing creditors is, in effect, that under Section 3b a petition for involuntary bankruptcy must be filed within four months after the commission of the act of bankruptcy; that under Section 59b, unless the creditors are less than twelve in number, to give the court jurisdiction the petition must be filed by not less than three creditors having provable claims; and that where less than three of the original petitioners are in fact such creditors, the joinder in the petition more than four months after the commission of the act of bankruptcy of intervening creditors having such claims, is in substance an amendment of the original petition, equiva lent to the filing of a new petition, which does not validate the original petition ab initio or...