In re Farr

• Decision Date: 23 July 1938
• Citation: 23 F. Supp. 945
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: In re FARR et al.

23 F. Supp. 945

In re FARR et al.

District Court, W. D. South Carolina, Greenville Division.

July 23, 1938.

H. K. Townes, Julia D. Charles, and B. F. Martin, all of Greenville, S. C., for debtors.

E. M. Blythe, Jr. (of Blythe & Bonham), of Greenville, S. C., for Peoples Nat. Bank of Greenville, executor of D. D. Davenport's Estate.

WYCHE, District Judge.

Minnie E. Farr and Nellie Farr, the debtors, together with their deceased brother, and sister, Susie Farr, mortgaged their farm to The Peoples National Bank of Greenville, Executor of the Estate of D. D. Davenport, to secure it upon an indebtedness amounting at this time to more than nineteen thousand dollars. The bank in October, 1935, brought foreclosure proceedings in the state court. After approximately two years' delay, sale was recommended by the Master, to whom the foreclosure proceedings had been referred. The State Circuit Court confirmed the Master's report and ordered the premises sold on salesday in April, 1937, but three days before the date of such sale the debtor, Minnie E. Farr, filed a petition under section 75(o) of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203, subsection (o), which stayed the proceedings in the state court. On July 26, 1937, the debtor, Minnie E. Farr, duly filed an inventory and petition for extension as provided in said section of the Bankruptcy Act, and the bank in turn filed its objections thereto, and noticed a motion to dismiss. At the hearing of the motion before me I allowed the debtor, Nellie Farr, to file her petition under the same section of the Bankruptcy Act, and by consent, the two proceedings were consolidated so that title to the entire interest in the land is now in the jurisdiction of this court, the other sister having prior thereto conveyed her interest to the debtors in this proceeding. Thereupon, I referred the matter to the Conciliation Commissioner, and he filed a report of the testimony as to the feasibility of the plan proposed by the debtors.

By the terms of the proposed extension the debtors purpose to sub-divide the premises into small tracts upon which they would put up-set prices, the aggregate of which would amount to several thousand dollars more than the mortgage indebtedness, and to sell these tracts from time to time at not less than the up-set prices. In the meantime, the debtors proposed to have the court stay all proceedings until the premises could be so sold, and during the stay agreed to apply the income from farming operations to the payment of the debt. The bank objected to this proposal on the ground that it involved a wholly speculative venture, and contended that it had no assurance that the most desirable portion of the land would be sold free of the lien of its mortgage for an amount inadequate to pay the indebtedness, and that a large portion of its indebtedness would be left unpaid, and the most valuable portion of the property disposed of.

The debtors having failed to obtain acceptance of a majority in number...