Opinion

Fish v. East

  • 114 F.2d 177
  • 1940 U.S. App. LEXIS 3091
Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Filed
Jun 29, 1940
Status
Published
On the bench
Phillips, Bratton, Williams
Cited by
142 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.5%

listing 10 factors relevant to substantive consolidation

How later courts described this case

  • listing 10 factors relevant to substantive consolidation
  • analyzing substantive consolidation under the Act
  • "Corporate entity may be disregarded where not to do so will defeat public convenience, justify wrong or protect fraud.”
  • seminal case stating rule and applying Colorado law

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

On Petition for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for appellants have filed a petition for rehearing in which they assert that the opinion of the court leaves Erland F. Fish without remedy for the funds advanced by him for the bankrupts to acquire the tax and judgment liens. We did not so intend. To secure reimbursement for the funds so advanced, Fish is entitled to benefit of the judgment and tax liens. The statutory time for filing general claims having expired and Fish having withdrawn his claim, he is not entitled to an allowance for any excess of such advances not satisfied by his securities. But a secured creditor does not lose his lien by failure to file a claim. Remington on Bankruptcy, vol. 2, § 910; Ward v. First Nat. Bank of Ironton, Ohio, 6 Cir., 202 F. 609, 612 ; Courtney v. Fidelity Trust Co., 6 Cir. 219 F. 57, 63 ; In re Cherokee Public Service Co., 8 Cir., 94 F.2d 536, 538 . The trustee took the bankrupt estate subject to Fish’s lien.

Hence, Fish is still entitled to the benefit of his securities and may enforce them in a proper proceeding. He may, if he so elect, file a petition against the trustee in the bankruptcy court seeking an enforcement of his securities and in that event, the referee should order sale of the tax and judgment liens to satisfy Fish’s advances unless the trustee make reimbursement to Fish therefor.

The referee reserved any rights that the Blue River Company may have to file claim for reclamation. It was not the intention of this court to pass upon or foreclose any right that the Blue River Company may have by way of reclamation.

It is so ordered. In other respects, the petition for rehearing is denied.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.