Sturgiss v. Corbin
| Decision Date | 02 November 1905 |
| Docket Number | 603. |
| Citation | 141 F. 1 |
| Parties | STURGISS v. CORBIN et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
B. M Ambler and A. Leo Weil, for petitioner.
Hector M. Hitchings and Reese Blizzard, for respondents.
Before GOFF, Circuit Judge, and MORRIS and WADDILL, District Judges.
In April, 1904, the Morgantown Tin Plate Company was duly adjudged a bankrupt. Application for an order of sale of the property of the bankrupt was made before the referee in bankruptcy, and was by him refused. A second application was made to him for such order, which was again refused. Thereupon, by proper proceedings, this action of the referee was reviewed by the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. That court, reversing the action of the referee, directed a sale of the bankrupt's property consisting of a tin plate plant at Morgantown, W. Va., clear of all liens, incumbrances, and claims. To make such sale the court appointed two commissioners, and gave them specific instructions for their government relating to the sale of said property. This action of the court in directing said sale, and in not directing the trustee in bankruptcy to make it if ordered, is complained of here as error.
By virtue of the decree of the court below, the commissioners proceeded to sell said property, offering it at public auction on March 16, 1905, continuing the sale until the following day, when they 'knocked it down' to one John G. Frazer at the price of $154,000. When this sale came before the District Court for confirmation, the petitioner George C. Sturgiss, submitted to the court an offer of $160,000 for the property, together with a statement of the circumstances attending the public sale which had caused him to cease bidding, and to mistakenly allow the property to be knocked down to Frazer. Upon considering the petition of Sturgiss and his objections to the confirmation of the sale to Frazer, as also his offer of $160,000, the court, Frazer not objecting, sustained the objections to the sale of March 16th, and, as all the parties who had bid on the property were present in court, in person or by attorney, and did not object, the court directed a resale to take place then and there at the bar of the court, bidding to be started with the offer made by Sturgiss. Accordingly the property was again offered, and was sold in the presence of the court to Sturgiss for $200,200. The commissioners afterwards, on April 4, 1905, when the matter of the confirmation of this sale to Sturgiss was before the court, reported that since said sale they had received from M. G. Palliser, for whom one of the commissioners was counsel, a bid of $208,000 for the property, and at that time the said bidder and his counsel asked the court not to confirm the sale of March 30th, but to offer the property again at an upset bid of $208,000. This application for a resale was opposed by Sturgiss, who then offered to comply fully with the terms of his purchase, but the court overruled his objection, and directed a resale. The objection of Sturgiss to the decree of resale was noted in the order of the court, and due notice was then given by him of an appeal and petition for review by this court. The resale so directed was at once made, the bidding commencing at the offer of $208,000 made by Palliser, and being knocked down to the said John G. Frazer at the price of $220,000, after Sturgiss had bid as much as $219,900 for the same. This sale was subsequently, by a decree of the court below, duly confirmed, over the protest, objections, and exceptions of said Sturgiss. This action of the court in setting aside the sale of said property to Sturgiss, in directing a resale of it, and in afterwards confirming the sale to Frazer, is alleged in the petition for review to be error.
The order of the court below directing a sale of the property clear of all liens, claims, and incumbrances was, under the circumstances, a wise exercise of judicial discretion, being such action as the bankrupt act contemplates and provides for in those instances where the nature and location of the property makes it desirable, in the interest of the creditors, that the same be sold as soon as possible. The act does not require that such sales shall be made by the trustee in bankruptcy, and while ordinarily it will likely be best and more convenient that such official conduct such sales still there are doubtless many cases in bankruptcy where it is entirely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Stanley Engineering Corporation
...$6,250 compared to $8,500 at the resale, did not of itself establish such gross inadequacy as to warrant the resale. In Sturgiss v. Corbin, 4 Cir., 1905, 141 F. 1, the high bid for a parcel of real estate at a judicial sale was $200,200. When the matter came up for confirmation a bid of $20......
-
Reid v. King
...of unfairness on the part of the party benefited. Authorities in this circuit and elsewhere are cited in support of this rule: Sturgiss v. Corbin, 4 Cir., 141 F. 1 (denial of confirmation on appeal reversed); Jacobsohn v. Larkey, 3 Cir., 245 F. 538, L.R.A.1918C, 1176 (denial of confirmation......
-
Canton Roll & Machine Co. v. Rolling Mill Co. of America
...lower court, and directed the last sale to be set aside and the second sale to Sturgiss at $200,200 to be confirmed. See Sturgiss v. Corbin, 72 C.C.A. 179, 141 F. 1. is in evidence here now that in the last sale so set aside Frazer was acting as agent and through orders of the defendants Hi......
-
In re Blue Coal Corp.
...decree of confirmation, in the absence of the inadequacy, fraud, or mistake before alluded to." Id., at page 320 citing Sturgiss v. Corbin, 141 F. 1 (4th Cir.1905). If this is the standard that we are to apply to the facts in the case before us, we first must be convinced that a private bid......