Samuel Scotten v. Charles Littlefield
| Decision Date | 14 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 439,439 |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 125,59 L.Ed. 289,235 U.S. 407 |
| Parties | SAMUEL C. SCOTTEN and Scotten & Snydacker, Appts., v. CHARLES E. LITTLEFIELD, Trustee of A. O. Brown and Others, Bankrupts |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Myer Cohen in behalf of Mr. Daniel P. Hays for appellee.
Messrs. Thorndike Saunders and James L. Coleman for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from Page 408 intentionally omitted] Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice Day by direction of the court:
This case presents another phase of the bankruptcy of A. O. Brown & Company, stockbrokers in New York. See First Nat. Bank v. Littlefield, 226 U. S. 110, 57 L. ed. 145, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 78; Gorman v. Littlefield, 229 U. S. 19, 57 L. ed. 1047, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 690; Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U. S. 707, 58 L. ed. 806, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 466. This case is submitted on the motion of appellee to dismiss, affirm, or place on the summary docket. The appellants filed a petition for reclamation in the bankruptcy court, which concerned, among other stocks, three hundred shares of United States Steel stock, which are now the subject-matter of this controversy. On April 20, 1911, the district court confirmed the report of the master, and entered an order dismissing the petitions of appellants and of some other claimants. Appellants appealed to the circuit court of appeals, and that court affirmed the district court (115 C. C. A. 348, 193 Fed. 24). The case then came to this court, and the judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed (226 U. S. 110). On August 4, 1913, the bill of review with which the present proceeding is concerned was filed in the district court. This was more than two years after the original order in the district court, dismissing the reclamation proceeding, was made. The district court dismissed the bill of review (213 Fed. 701). That decree was affirmed in the circuit court of appeals (213 Fed. 705). Then the case was appealed here.
Both courts below put their decisions on the ground that the appeal to the circuit court of appeals from the original order of the district court in the reclamation proceedings really involved the claim for the United States Steel stock in its present aspect, and that if not presented to the court of appeals when there on appeal it could not be held back and made the subject of a bill of review, as is now attempted to be done. We think this decision was clearly right. Furthermore, the ground alleged for the bill of review now is, that the principles which determined the disposition of the Gorman Case, 229 U. S. 19 (), reversing the circuit court of appeals in the same case (99 C. C. A. 345, 175 Fed. 769), would,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Safeway Stores v. Coe
...v. Grier Bros., 258 U.S. 82, 42 S.Ct. 196, 66 L.Ed. 475, but would not lay the foundation for a bill of review. Scotten v. Littlefield, 235 U.S. 407, 35 S.Ct. 125, 59 L.Ed. 289; Simmons Co. v. Grier, supra; Swift v. Parmenter, 10 Cir., 22 F.2d 142. See, also, The Frederick Der Grosse, D. C.......
-
Glass Co v. Co
...be found that Hazel held back what it knew and, if so, is not entitled now to attack the original decree. In Scotten v. Littlefield, 235 U.S. 407, 35 S.Ct. 125, 59 L.Ed. 289, in affirming the denial of a bill of review, this court said that if the claim now made was 'not presented to the co......
-
HYATT v. KAPPOS
...the outcome of the prior proceeding. See, e.g., Beard v. Burts, 95 U.S. 434, 436, 24 L.Ed. 485 (1877); Scotten v. Littlefield, 235 U.S. 407, 411, 35 S.Ct. 125, 59 L.Ed. 289 (1914). In Beard, the Court explained: To sustain a bill of review, there must be errors of law apparent on the face o......
-
Nelson v. Bailey
...95 U.S. 99, 24 L.Ed. 381;Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U.S. 1, 7, 8 S.Ct. 811, 31 L.Ed. 629;Scotten v. Littlefield, 235 U.S. 407, 411, 35 S.Ct. 125, 59 L.Ed. 289. In the Federal courts the time for bringing a bill of review of this class has been limited by judicial decision to t......