In re Collins
Decision Date | 20 December 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 10000.,10000. |
Parties | In re COLLINS. SHERMAN et al. v. COLLINS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John M. Holmes, of St. Louis, Mo. (Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Young, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellants.
Before STONE, GARDNER, and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve an order restraining sale of real estate to satisfy a default on a deed of trust covering the property. The appeal is by the trustee and the note holder.
In 1929, the Marner Realty Company, a Missouri corporation, executed a deed of trust upon certain real estate in St. Louis, Mo., to secure payment of a note for $60,000 (with semiannual interest notes) due April 1, 1934. The deed of trust contained the usual provisions as to payment of taxes and as to acceleration for default in payment of taxes or of interest notes. General taxes beginning with 1930 became delinquent and had to be paid by the note holder, as well as a special assessment tax. These delinquencies with an unpaid interest note total something over $9,000. Exercising the right of acceleration, the trustee, on February 8, 1934, commenced the twenty-day advertisement of sale required by the deed of trust.
The day following (February 9, 1934), the Marner Company transferred this property to David J. Collins, Sr., for an expressed consideration of $100. As matter of fact, no actual consideration was agreed to be paid or was paid by Collins. On February 12, 1934, Collins filed a debtor's petition under section 74 of the Bankruptcy Act (the Acts of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1467, § 1, and of June 7, 1934, § 2, 48 Stat. 922, 923 11 USCA § 202). The same day, the debtor filed in that proceeding a petition to enjoin the above sale. The following day, and without notice to appellants, an order was entered restraining such sale "until further instructions of this court." The trustee and the note holder filed, on February 19, 1934 (refiled February 20, 1934), a petition to dissolve the above order and to authorize the sale to proceed. This petition, after setting forth the deed of trust and other matters leading up to the sale, contained the allegations following:
February 23, 1934, this petition was denied, and petitioners appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Victory Const. Co., Inc.
...to fulfill objectives of the statute: Sterba, 74 F.2d 413 (7th Cir. 1935). c. Protective cover for fraudulent design: Collins, 75 F.2d 62 (8th Cir. 1934); Shapiro v. Wilgus, 287 U.S. 348, 53 S.Ct. 142, 77 L.Ed. 355 d. Willful failure to comply with the statute: Tinkoff, 85 F.2d 305 (7th Cir......
-
Hyde Park Amusement Co. v. Mogler
... ... a manner to bar him from seeking equitable relief, any taint ... on Clarence Kaimann cannot be imputed to plaintiff ... corporation. Courts will not pierce the corporate veil to ... further fraud -- only to prevent fraud. In re ... Collins, 75 F.2d 62; Council for Defense etc. v ... International Magazine Co., 267 F. 390; Gordon v ... Brucker, 208 Ill.App. 188; Note: 1 Prentice-Hall ... Corporation Service, para. 1014-1015; In re N.Y. Title & Mortgage Co., 172 N.Y. Misc. 73, 14 N.Y.S. (2d) 570 ... Carl M ... ...
-
Continental Oil Co. v. Jones
...settled than that a corporation is ordinarily a wholly separate entity from its stockholders, whether they be one or more. In re Collins, 75 F.2d 62 (C.C.A.); Wilson v. Crooks (D.C.) 52 F.2d 692; Majestic Co. v. Orpheum Circuit, Inc. (C.C.A.) 21 F.2d 720; Owl Fumigating Corporation v. Calif......
-
Interstate Transit Lines v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.
...Oil Co. v. Hopkins, 5 Cir., 53 F.2d 825, 827; New Colonial Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 441, 54 S.Ct. 788, 78 L.Ed. 1348; In re Collins, 8 Cir., 75 F.2d 62, 64; United Light & Power Co. v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 105 F.2d 866, 878; and Consumers Const. Co. v. Commissioner, 1 Cir., 94 F.2d ......
-
The Objective and Jurisdictional Origins of Chapter 11's Good Faith Filing Requirement.
...entity and thereby allow reorganization of property which otherwise could not be reorganized under the statute.") (citing In re Collins, 75 F.2d 62 (8th Cir. 1934)); In re Christin, 50 F. Supp. 78, 81 (S.D. Cal. 1943) ("While it is true that a farmer may avail himself of the benefits contai......