Mintz v. Lester, 1578.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 1578.,1578. |
| Citation | 95 F.2d 590 |
| Parties | MINTZ v. LESTER et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
R. C. Garland and J. H. Paxton, both of Las Cruces, N. M., for appellant.
R. R. Posey and Edwin Mechem, both of Las Cruces, N. M., for appellees.
Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
On July 5, 1934, Minnie E. Mintz, a farmer, filed her petition in the District Court of the United States for the District of New Mexico, under the provisions of section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, 47 Stat. 1470, as amended, 48 Stat. 925, §§ 8, 9, 48 Stat. 1289, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203, and note, seeking relief by way of a composition with her creditors or an extension of time to pay her debts.
On July 30, 1934, her proposal for a composition was rejected by her creditors.
On August 24, 1934, she filed an amended petition praying to be adjudged a bankrupt under subsection (s) of section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, 48 Stat. 1289, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203 note. On August 25, 1934, the court entered an order of adjudication and referred the matter to a referee in bankruptcy. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 55 S.Ct. 854, 79 L.Ed. 1593, 97 A.L.R. 1106, and on June 24, 1935, the court, on recommendation of the referee, entered its order dismissing the proceeding.
On October 7, 1935, Mintz filed in the office of the clerk of the district court a petition to reinstate the proceeding. On October 24, 1935, the district court entered its order reinstating the proceeding.
On December 2, 1935, Lester and Clark filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding. On December 20, 1935, the district court after hearing entered its order dismissing the proceeding.
No further steps were taken by the bankrupt until April 21, 1937, when she filed a motion to reinstate the proceeding seeking a rehearing of the motion to dismiss and a reconsideration of the action of the court in dismissing the proceeding by its order of December 20, 1935. On May 10, 1937, the trial court entered its order denying the motion to reinstate. On May 18, 1937, the debtor filed a petition for rehearing. On May 20, 1937, the trial court denied the motion for rehearing.
On June 14, 1937, the bankrupt filed a motion in this court praying an appeal from the order of May 20, 1937, denying the motion for rehearing.1 On August 7, 1937, this court granted an appeal from such order.
A motion for a rehearing is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and a refusal to entertain a motion therefor or a denial of the motion, if entertained, is not the subject of appeal. Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Company, 300 U.S. 131, 137, 57 S.Ct. 382, 385, 81 L.Ed. 557; Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U. S. 103, 106, 10 S.Ct. 12, 33 L.Ed. 277; Conboy v. First National Bank of Jersey City, 203 U.S. 141, 145, 27 S.Ct. 50, 51 L.Ed. 128; Stradford v. Wagner, 10 Cir., 64 F.2d 749, 751.
Likewise, the order of May 10, 1937, was not appealable. The petition to reinstate in effect sought a reconsideration of the court's action in dismissing the proceeding by its order of December 20, 1935 — a rehearing of the motion to dismiss by a motion filed long after the time for appealing from such order had expired. A party may not avoid the effect of the statute limiting the time within which an appeal may be taken from an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.
...its recent decision in Pfister v. Northern Illinois Finance Corp., 63 S.Ct. 133, 87 L.Ed. ___, November 16, 1942. See also Mintz v. Lester, 10 Cir., 1938, 95 F.2d 590. That problem is not presented in the case at bar, for here the untimely motion for reconsideration was filed before the sta......
-
Chapman v. Federal Land Bank of Louisville, Ky.
...of the order of dismissal. The question presented to us was answered by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Mintz v. Lester, 95 F.2d 590, 591, in which a farmer-debtor filed an amended petition seeking adjudication in bankruptcy under subsection s, of section 75 of the Ban......
-
Mohonk Realty Corporation v. Wise Shoe Stores
...15 L.Ed. 432; Dean v. Mason, 20 How. 198, 61 U.S. 198, 15 L.Ed. 876; Steinfur Patents Corp. v. Meyerson, 2 Cir., 49 F.2d 765; Mintz v. Lester, 10 Cir., 95 F.2d 590; Lupfer v. Carlton, 5 Cir., 64 F.2d 272; Willis v. Davis, 6 Cir., 184 F. 889; Burns v. Ender Coal & Coke Co., 7 Cir., 104 F.2d ......
-
Carter v. United States
...1196; Stradford v. Wagner, 10 Cir., 64 F.2d 749; Clarke v. Hot Springs Electric Light & Power Co., 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 918; Mintz v. Lester, 10 Cir., 95 F.2d 590; Bass v. Baltimore & O. Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 779. And, orders thereon are reviewable only for an abuse of discretion. U......