In re Ripley, 2050.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 2050.,2050. |
| Citation | 40 F. Supp. 850 |
| Parties | In re RIPLEY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
W. H. Martin, of Boonville, Mo., for creditors.
H. K. Bente and G. W. Anson, both of Sedalia, Mo., for debtor.
John J. Stegner, of Boonville, Mo., Conciliation Com'r.
The proceeding is for composition or extension of debt under the Frazier-Lemke Farm Mortgage Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203. A petition for composition was filed and referred, the first creditors meeting held, a proposal submitted and refused, an amended petition under subsection (s) filed, a motion to dismiss filed and sustained by the Conciliation Commissioner, and a petition for review filed by the debtor. The entire record including a transcript of the testimony adduced at the first creditors meeting and upon the motion to dismiss is submitted with the petition for review of the Conciliation Commissioner's action.
From the record it appears that one Garland Young owned a farm of approximately 80 acres upon which there was a first mortgage of $2,800. Unpaid taxes and interest increased the indebtedness against the farm to approximately $3,100. Young apparently decided to abandon the farm to the mortgage holder. Glenn Ripley, the present debtor, heard of this and about February 1, 1941, purchased Young's title for $50. The mortgage holder learning of the transfer of title notified Ripley in writing on February 5, 1941, that a foreclosure was imminent. No inquiry had been made by Ripley of the mortgage holder concerning the status of the mortgage. On February 5th, Young had a public sale of his personal property. February 6th, Ripley moved to the farm. On the same day the first publication of notice of the foreclosure sale was made. March 3rd, the petition for composition or extension was filed.
At the time Ripley purchased Young's title the former owned property consisting of several pigs about one month old. The exact number is disputed but the total was less than twenty. These were unencumbered. In addition he owned some household goods mortgaged for $275 which were valued by Ripley in his schedule at $50. He had possession of eleven milch cows under an arrangement with the owner that he was to pay $4 per month for the use of each cow, feed them and have the milk from the cows. The arrangement did not pay Ripley for his labor, hence as he summarized the result, the owner of the cows did not get what the agreement provided for. Ripley owned no farm implements of any kind, no work stock or tractor, no poultry. He had been a farmer all his life and had accumulated some $3,300 of unsecured debts. When the original petition was filed on March 3rd, he valued the farm at $1,800. The plan which he submitted to his creditors contemplated paying the secured creditor $1,800 on the mortgage. This amount he proposed to borrow from someone. The interest on the mortgage, and the past due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Victory Const. Co., Inc.
...34 F.Supp. 760 (W.D.N.Y. 1940); Zumkehr, 108 F.2d 448 (7th Cir. 1939). n. Purchase of naked title on eve of foreclosure: Ripley, 40 F.Supp. 850 (W.D.Mo.1941). o. Intent to protect violation of State land Kuye Takano, 71 F.Supp. 79 (D.C.Cal. 1947). Cases dealing with "good faith" in the cont......
-
McLean v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha
...his rights. He was not an outsider seeking to gain the benefits of the Act as a stranger-volunteer, such as was the case in In re Ripley, D.C.W.D.Mo., 40 F. Supp. 850; In re Cole, D.C.W.D.Mich., 29 F.Supp. 382, or In re Fullagar, D.C.W.D. N.Y., 8 F.Supp. 602. The situation is more like that......
-
In re Bicknell
...conveyed to him for the sole purpose of enabling him to seek relief under that section. In re Fullagar, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 602; In re Ripley, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 850; In re Cole, D.C., 29 F. Supp. 382; In re Carter, 38 F.Supp. 726. It would seem, however, that the cited cases arising under Sectio......
-
In re Bicknell
...its dismissal. In re Stoner, D. C., 38 F.Supp. 155; In re Carter, D.C., 38 F.Supp. 726; In re Cole, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 382; In re Ripley, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 850. The cases in the latter group are responsive chiefly to the question of good faith as it is affected by the debtor's status as a Howe......
-
The Objective and Jurisdictional Origins of Chapter 11's Good Faith Filing Requirement.
...because the debtor was not a 'farmer', within the purview of the section, at the time his petition was filed."); In re Ripley, 40 F. Supp. 850, 852 (W.D. Mo. 1941) (finding that good faith under Section 75 did not "refer to the debtor's good faith in his intention or ability to pay his debt......