DocketNumber: No. 1651
Citation Numbers: 297 F. 786
Judges: Bingham
Filed Date: 4/10/1924
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/26/2022
This is a petition to revise in matter of law" an order or decree of the United States District Court for Massachusetts of May 3, 1923, affirming an order of the referee in bankruptcy dissolving the meeting of creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding against the stock brokerage firm of Hugh J. Dimond & Co.
It appears that the petitioner is a creditor of the firm of Dimond & Co., who were adjudicated bankrupts on an involuntary petition August 23, 1921; that on September 15, 1921, a trustee of the bankrupts’ estate
It further appears that counsel for the petitioner had made no request that the books and records be in court at the time; that every opportunity had been afforded petitioner’s counsel to examine the books and records of the bankrupt; that he had been afforded an opportunity to examine the transcript of the trustee’s examination, but had not done so; that he had no definite facts in mind which he desired to bring out, and would not even state what his first question to the bankrupt Dimond would be.
Counsel for the petitioner having declined to' ask any questions, the referee entered an order dissolving the special creditors’ meeting, which order the District Court affirmed, on the ground that:
“Full opportunity was accorded creditors and their counsel to inquire into the affairs of the bankrupt and to examine him under oath.”
It is not our province in this proceeding to weigh the evidence -and say what conclusion should be reached. Our duty is of a more . restricted character, and is limited to determining, whether there was any evidence or facts upon which the conclusion of the District Court could reasonably be based. The mere fact that the books and records of the bankrupts’ business were not in court at the time the petitioner was called upon to examine the bankrupt is not controlling. Especially is this true when it is considered that for a series of months the petitioner and his counsel had been given the privilege of examining the books and records of the bankrupt at their pleasure, and had not requested their production at the hearing; that they had been seasonably provided with a transcript of the trustee’s examination; and that, when called upon to proceed with their examination, they had declined to do so. If it be assumed, as petitioner contends, that he was entitled as of right to an opportunity to examine the bankrupts, by virtue of section 7, par. 9, and section 21a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. §§ 9591, 9605), we think there was evidence from which the District Court was warranted in finding that he was accorded the opportunity and failed to avail himself of it. , v
The order or decree of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.