Wayne United Gas Co v. Owensillinois Glass Co, No. 305

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtROBERTS
Citation57 S.Ct. 382,300 U.S. 131,81 L.Ed. 557
PartiesWAYNE UNITED GAS CO. v. OWENSILLINOIS GLASS CO. et al
Decision Date01 February 1937
Docket NumberNo. 305

300 U.S. 131
57 S.Ct. 382
81 L.Ed. 557
WAYNE UNITED GAS CO.

v.

OWENSILLINOIS GLASS CO. et al.

No. 305.
Argued Jan. 7, 8, 1937.
Decided Feb. 1, 1937.

Messrs.

Page 132

Robert S. Spilman and Fred O. Blue, both of Charleston, W.Va., for petitioner.

Mr. H. D. Rummel, of Charleston, W.Va., for respondents.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that a District Court is without power to set aside its order dismissing a petition for reorganization under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U.S.C.A. § 207), and to rehear the cause after the ex-

Page 133

piration of the period allowed by the Act for appeal from the order.1 To resolve a conflict of decision2 we granted certiorari. 229 U.S. 528, 57 S.Ct. 41, 81 L.Ed. —-.

November 25, 1935, the petitioner filed in the District Court for Southern West Virginia a petition and, on December 10th, an amended and supplemental petition for corporate reorganization under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended.3 February 7, 1936, the respondents filed objections and motions to dismiss. March 2d the petitions were dismissed. March 20th the petitioner presented to the Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for appeal, pursuant to section 24(b) of the Bankruptcy Act.4 April 15th the court denied the appeal,5 holding that the petitioner should have proceeded under section 25(a).6 April 17th petitioner notified respondents that on April 24th it would present a petition to the District Court praying vacation of the order of March 2d and a rehearing and review of all matters arising in the proceedings because of errors committed by the court in dismissing its petitions, and that, upon rehearing, the court would be asked to enter an order approving the original and amended petitions. After presentation of the petition for rehearing and argument thereon the court directed

Page 134

that it be filed, took the matter under advisement, and, on May 12th, set aside the order of March 2d, granted a rehearing and review and fixed May 22d for a hearing on all questions arising on the record. The court found that good cause existed justifying vacation of its previous order and reconsideration of the cause. It further found that the application had been seasonably presented and no rights had vested under the order of March 2d which would be disturbed by setting the order aside. By leave of court the petitioner, on May 22d, presented a second amended and supplemental petition, which incorporated the earlier petitions for reorganization, and asked the court to find that the original and supplemental petitions were filed in good faith and complied with section 77B. The respondents objected. May 28th the court, after a hearing, sustained the respondents' objections and dismissed the petitions for reasons set forth in findings of fact and conclusions of law. June 11th petitioner's application to the judge of the District Court, under section 25(a) of the act, for an appeal, with supersedeas, was granted. The Circuit Court of Appeals, on respondents' motion, dismissed the appeal.

1. The respondents have moved to dismiss the writ of certiorari on the ground that the controversy has become moot. In support of the motion they show that for some time prior to the institution of the 77B proceedings the debtor's property had been in possession of a receiver appointed by a state court; that the trustee of a first mortgage had intervened in the receivership proceeding and sought foreclosure; that the state court had ordered a sale of all the debtor's property and the decree of sale had become final before the presentation of the petition for reorganization. They show that subsequent to the order of March 2d dismissing the petition for reorganization further action by the state court resulted in the confirmation of a commissioner's sale, payment of

Page 135

the purchase price partly in cash and partly in first mortgage bonds of the debtor and execution and delivery of a deed to the purchaser, a nominee of respondents. It appears not only that the respondents were parties to the 77B proceeding but that, prior to the consummation of the sale, the state court was fully advised of the steps taken in the federal courts and of the pendency of the petition for certiorari in this court to review the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal.

The respondents went forward with the proceedings in the state court, looking to a sale of the debtor's property, with full knowledge that a rehearing might be granted and that the order entered thereon might be appealed. They are not entitled, therefore, to rely on any status acquired in the state court suit as precluding further consideration of the petition for reorganization. The motion must accordingly be overruled.

2. The petitioner asserts that the grant or refusal of a rehearing rested in the sound discretion of the District Court and since in the proper exercise of that discretion the court entertained the application and reheard the case upon the merits, its action again dismissing the petition for reorganization was a final order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
187 practice notes
  • First Trust & Savings Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co., No. 11055.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 8, 1938
    ...therefor, or the refusal of the petition, if entertained, is not the subject of appeal. Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 137, 57 S.Ct. 382, 385, 81 L.Ed. 557; United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354; United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55,......
  • Gilmore v. United States, No. 12159
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 5, 1943
    ...72 L.Ed. 439; United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 306-307, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L. Ed. 354; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 136, 137, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557; Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Electric Co., 8 Cir., 294 F. 802, 806, certiorari denied 264 U.S. 589, 44 S.Ct......
  • In re Monument Record Corp., No. 383-00747
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 13, 1987
    ...Georgia Steel, Inc., 25 B.R. 790, 794 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1982). The references in Texlon to Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557 (1937), and to Pfister v. Northern Illinois Fin. Corp., 317 U.S. 144, 63 S.Ct. 133, 87 L.Ed. 146 (1942) suggest t......
  • In re Republic Fabricators, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 82-61760.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • July 20, 1989
    ...had power, after three (3) years, to reconsider secured creditor's claim.). In Wayne United Gas Company v. Owens-Illinois Glass Company, 300 U.S. 131, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557, 33 AmBR(ns) 1 (1937), the Supreme Court reversed a District Court's conclusion that a Bankruptcy Court's second ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
187 cases
  • First Trust & Savings Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co., No. 11055.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 8, 1938
    ...therefor, or the refusal of the petition, if entertained, is not the subject of appeal. Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 137, 57 S.Ct. 382, 385, 81 L.Ed. 557; United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354; United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55,......
  • Gilmore v. United States, No. 12159
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 5, 1943
    ...72 L.Ed. 439; United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 306-307, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L. Ed. 354; Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 136, 137, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557; Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Electric Co., 8 Cir., 294 F. 802, 806, certiorari denied 264 U.S. 589, 44 S.Ct......
  • In re Monument Record Corp., No. 383-00747
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 13, 1987
    ...Georgia Steel, Inc., 25 B.R. 790, 794 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1982). The references in Texlon to Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557 (1937), and to Pfister v. Northern Illinois Fin. Corp., 317 U.S. 144, 63 S.Ct. 133, 87 L.Ed. 146 (1942) suggest t......
  • In re Republic Fabricators, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 82-61760.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • July 20, 1989
    ...had power, after three (3) years, to reconsider secured creditor's claim.). In Wayne United Gas Company v. Owens-Illinois Glass Company, 300 U.S. 131, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557, 33 AmBR(ns) 1 (1937), the Supreme Court reversed a District Court's conclusion that a Bankruptcy Court's second ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT