U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1957

S. F. Brothers Co., Bankrupt v. Walter G. Wiseman, Trustee in Bankruptcy

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided March 26, 1957 · Simons, Allen, McAllister

244 F.2d 73; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4331 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Fred B. Collier, Royal Oak, Mich., on brief, for appellant., Benjamin D. Jaffe, Detroit, Mich., Aaron Weiswasser, Detroit, Mich., of counsel; Weiswasser, Jaffe & Radner, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Anaconda-Ericsson Inc. v. Hessen (In re Teltronics Services, Inc.) (District Court, E.D. New York 1984)
Denco Development Co., a Corporation, an Alleged Bankrupt v. Community Savings & Loan Assn. (9th Cir. 1967)
Patton v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1965)
In re Ralph C. Mathewson, Debtor v. Ralph C. Mathewson (3d Cir. 1963)
In the Matter of Albert-Harris, Inc., Bankrupt. Machinery Terminals, Inc. v. Kent W. Woodward, Frank H. Harvey, Jr., and Jerome Holub, Trustees (6th Cir. 1963)
Florida Trailer And Equipment Company v. Wiley R. Deal (5th Cir. 1960)
Florida Trailer & Equipment Co. v. Deal (5th Cir. 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether there was an abuse of discretion by the Referee in Bankruptcy in the district court in approving a compromise settlement. The compromise was entered into by the Trustee in Bankruptcy with a claimant who had pending litigation with the bankrupt in the district court.

Title 11 U.S.C.A. § 50, Sec. 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, provides that the receiver or trustee may, with the approval of the court, compromise any controversy arising in the administration of the estate upon such terms as he may deem for the best interest of the estate.' The evidence disclosed that the litigation which was pending against the bankrupt at the time of his bankruptcy involved many conflicting claims. The district court was aware of the nature of the litigation, as the district judge, who approved the compromise, had heard much of the evidence in the case between the claimant and bankrupt during a two week period of the trial prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy, during which the claimant had introduced its evidence in detail. The district court, therefore, had obviously ascertained the nature and extent of the claim against the bankrupt.

An order approving a compromise of a doubtful claim involves the discretionary powers of the court, and may be disturbed only when it clearly appears *74 that such discretion has been abused, Scott v. Jones, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 30.

In the instant case, notice of the proposed compromise agreement was given to all creditors and they had an opportunity to be heard in opposition thereto. The only objection to the compro- , , ,, , , , ™ mise was made by the bankrupt. There „ , „ . is no showing of abuse of discretion either on the part of the referee or on the par o e is nc cour m approvm e compromise se emen .

In accordance with the foregoing, the order of the district court affirming the approval of the compromise by the referee, is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Picard, D.C., 151 F.Supp. 153.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.