In re Leigh

• Decision Date: 31 January 1921
• Docket Number: 2885.
• Citation: In re Leigh, 272 F. 678 (7th Cir. 1921)
• Parties: In re LEIGH. v. LAUGHLIN. CHICAGO RAILWAY EQUIPMENT CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

272 F. 678

In re LEIGH.

CHICAGO RAILWAY EQUIPMENT CO. et al. v. LAUGHLIN.

No. 2885.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 31, 1921

John H S. Lee, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

Louis E. Hart, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in this court to revise and have vacated an order of the District Court reopening the estate of the bankrupt, Leigh. On the petition of respondent Laughlin, the District Court made the order, and the basis of it was probable cause to believe that the assets of the estate had not been fully administered because the bankrupt had fraudulently concealed assets from the trustee. Laughlin notified the equipment company and the bank, petitioners here, of the pendency of his application to reopen the estate. They appeared and resisted the reopening on the ground that the trustee had sold at judicial sale under order of court the bankrupt's interest in the assets in question and they were purchasers thereof in good faith. Laughlin in response introduced evidence tending to prove that the petitioners were purchasers in behalf of the bankrupt, that at the sale the petitioners and the bankrupt suppressed from the trustee and from possible competitive bidders material facts, and that the price obtained at the sale, in view of the suppressed facts, not discovered until after the estate was closed, was shockingly inadequate.

Petitioners' contention is that the District Court was without lawful power to reopen the estate, except upon a finding that the judicial sale was voidable. But Laughlin was only one of the creditors. He had no standing to frame an issue on behalf...