In re Harris, 7699.
| Decision Date | 05 August 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7699.,7699. |
| Citation | 78 F.2d 849 |
| Parties | In re HARRIS. HARRIS v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Lloyd S. Nix, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Loeb, Walker & Loeb, Lyman P. Robertson, T. Russell Harriman Jr., and Ross T. Hickcox, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before WILBUR and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges, and ST. SURE, District Judge.
William Sullivan Harris filed an application on July 21, 1934, under section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 USCA § 203), alleging that "he is personally bona fide engaged in farming operations and that the principal part of his income is derived from farming operations. * * *" He alleges that either personally or through the medium of tenant farmers he operates some 1,602 acres of farm land in Imperial county, Cal.; that he is solvent and desires to affect a composition or extension of time to pay his debts which, according to schedule A, aggregate $539,521.69, with assets aggregating $903,595.40. On July 21, 1934, the court approved the petition, referred the matter to a conciliation commissioner and, upon application by the petitioner, issued a restraining order against the creditors named in the order restraining them from taking any proceeding for the enforcement of their indebtedness. On November 10, 1934, the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California filed a motion to dissolve the restraining order and dismiss the proceeding. This matter came on to be heard on the 16th or 17th of November, 1934, and on November 21, 1934, the court entered its order finding that the petitioner was not a farmer under the terms of section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act and particularly under the terms of subdivision (r) of that section (11 USCA § 203 (r), and dismissing the proceeding setting aside and dissolving the injunction and restraining orders theretofore made therein. On December 3, 1934, appellant petitioned the District Court for allowance of an appeal to this court. This appeal was allowed on December 3, 1934. A similar petition was filed in this court on December 10, 1934, for the allowance of an appeal under section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended by Act May 27, 1926, § 9 (11 USCA § 47 (b). The decision upon this application was postponed until the hearing of the cause before this court.
We have held in Wilkerson v. Cooch, 78 F.(2d) 311 (June 17, 1935), that the allowance of the appeal by the District Court in such proceeding does not confer jurisdiction on this court, and for that reason the appeal must be dismissed.
The next question is whether or not an appeal should be allowed by this court in pursuance of a petition heretofore filed. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of California v. Fred S. Renauld & Co.
... ... 123. This appeal involves less than $500. See In re Harris, 9 Cir., 1935, 78 F.2d 849; England v. Ducasse, 9 Cir., 1939, 104 F.2d 760; In re Henry R. Dabney Oil Co., 9 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 652; Shulman v ... ...
-
In re McGrew
...v. Livy, 4 Cir., 97 F.2d 674; Benitez v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1 Cir., 109 F.2d 743; In re Storey, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 858. Cf. In re Harris, 9 Cir., 78 F.2d 849. 26 Appellant's Appendix p. 27 The testimony in support of that finding was certainly overwhelming: "Q. In 1937 when you filed this pe......