Stone v. Huffstutler

• Decision Date: 27 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 15542.,15542.
• Citation: 227 F.2d 217
• Parties: Clyde STONE and wife, Ruby Stone, and John Ed Stone and wife, Mary Stone, interested parties, Appellants, v. Joe D. HUFFSTUTLER, Referee in Bankruptcy, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

227 F.2d 217 (1955)

Clyde STONE and wife, Ruby Stone, and John Ed Stone and wife, Mary Stone, interested parties, Appellants, v. Joe D. HUFFSTUTLER, Referee in Bankruptcy, Appellee.

No. 15542.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

November 25, 1955.

Rehearing Denied December 27, 1955.

Marion G. Holt, Nacogdoches, Tex., for appellants.

Ben Goodwin, Tyler, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

This appeal is the second step in the attempt of appellants, as the taxpayers against whom the taxes were originally assessed, to review the order of the referee in Cause No. 3741, denying the claim of the United States against J. E. Stone Lumber Co., Inc., the bankrupt, based on the contention that the corporation had assumed, and was liable on its assumption for, income taxes assessed against Clyde Stone and J. E. Stone and their wives for the years 1947, 1949 and 1950.

The first step, a petition for review,¹ was filed by the Stones claiming to be "parties in interest affected directly by the order of the referee" and "aggrieved" thereby, within the meaning of Sec. 67, Title 11, U.S.C.A. and considered by the district judge, though the Stones were not parties to the proceeding for the allowance of the claim of the United States and had not filed claims in the bankruptcy proceedings, or otherwise made themselves parties to it, in respect thereto. In his order denying the petition for review, the district judge, reciting that he had considered the petition and had concluded that it should be denied, affirmed, approved and adopted the order of the referee.

Appealing from that order, appellants are here insisting that, though not parties to the cause, they were and are interested parties who will be directly affected by the order of the referee in that they delivered to the corporation all the assets of the partnership, and, in addition, the corporation intended to and did assume the income taxes, and that they were and are entitled to petition for review and to appeal from the order denying their petition.

We do not think so. We are, on the contrary, of the opinion that the appellants were not, within the meaning of the invoked section "parties in interest in the execution or enforcement of the order complained of" and were not entitled to petition for review thereof, and that the order appealed from should, therefore, be vacated with directions to the district judge to dismiss the petition for review.

It is quite plain, we think, both from the language of the statute itself and from its uniform construction in the cases, that persons not in any way parties to a bankruptcy proceeding in respect of which an order was entered, have no standing or right to petition for its review. Rogers v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n, 9 Cir., 142 F.2d 128. We have been cited to no cases, we have found none holding to the contrary. Neither the decision nor the opinion in ...