In re Dandridge & Pugh

• Decision Date: 07 October 1913
• Docket Number: 1,929.
• Citation: 209 F. 838
• Parties: In re DANDRIDGE & PUGH. v. DANDRIDGE et al. COONEY et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

209 F. 838

In re DANDRIDGE & PUGH.

COONEY et al. v. DANDRIDGE et al.

No. 1,929.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 7, 1913

Julius Moses and Sherman M. Booth, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.

Charles M. Haft, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.

Before BAKER and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges, and GEIGER, District Judge.

GEIGER District Judge.

The general rule that parties against whom a joint judgment or order is rendered must unite in an appeal is applicable to appeals in bankruptcy proceedings; and Mr. Loveland, in his work on bankruptcy, volume 2, pages 1465 to 1469, after noting instances where such rule has been applied-- the particular question before us not appearing to have been reviewed-- observes:

'Where an appeal is taken from a judgment refusing to adjudge a defendant bankrupt, * * * all the petitioning creditors at least, and probably also such as may have appeared to join in the petition under section 59f, should unite in the appeal.' Section 59f of the Bankruptcy Act reads as follows:

'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.'

The question is directly presented respecting the standing, as parties, of the 19 creditors who intervened. The undoubted purpose of this section is to enable creditors, other than original petitioners, to acquire a standing in the proceedings such as would, with respect to those desiring to join in the prayer for an adjudication, prevent a dismissal in case it developed that original petitioners were disqualified; and to grant to those desiring to oppose an adjudication, the right to join the alleged bankrupt therein or to assert his right in opposition in case of his failure to do so. Whatever other object the section may have, this is true: That it was designed to furnish to creditors a summary method whereby they could make themselves parties petitioner or respondent, giving to them respectively all the rights and privileges with regard to the maintenance or defense of, the proceedings, which the law gives to original petitioners who instituted, or to the bankrupt resisting, them. It is capable of no other interpretation save that it gives to creditors so coming in by appearance and joinder in the petition or answer a definite status or standing from which they cannot be eliminated except...