Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

309 U.S. 1

Miller v. Hatfield

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 5, 1940.

Decided January 15, 1940.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1940-01-15

2 counsel of record

Relies on Kalb v. Feuerstein · Knickerbocker Life Ins Co v. Pendleton · Dodge v. Knowles

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · 8–0 · Decided 1940-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2000

14 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

901940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Elmer McClain for petitioner.

¶2Mr. Kent W. Hughes, with whom Mr. H. E. Garling was on the brief, for respondents.

¶3Per Curiam.

¶4This proceeding was instituted by a farmer-debtor pursuant to § 75 of the Bankruptcy Act. Under an order of the District Court, approving an order of the conciliation commissioner, petitioner’s farm was sold to one of the co-trustees of a mortgage upon the property and the sale was confirmed by the District Court.

¶5A petition for rehearing, was denied. Upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, that court found that the purchaser at the sale was not a party to the appeal and *2dismissed it. Petitioner sought a rehearing upon the ground that the purchaser had actual notice of the appeal and had appeared in the Court of Appeals joining in an objection to an enlargement of time for filing the record, and also seeking appointment of a receiver or an additional supersedeas bond. Petitioner also asked that- if it be considered that the purchaser was not already before the court, a citation should be issued to bring him in. The Court of Appeals denied both applications. Certiorari was granted, 308 U. S. 534.

¶6We are of the opinion that the action of the Court of Appeals was erroneous. If the court deemed the purchaser to be a necessary party and not before the court, the motion to issue a citation to him should have been granted. R. S. 954, 28 U. S. C. 777. Dodge v. Knowles, 114. U. S. 430, 438; Knickerbocker Life Insurance Co. v. Pendleton, 115 U. S. 339; In re Knox-Powell-Stockton Co., 97 F. 2d 61.

¶7The decree is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

¶8Reversed.

/309/us/1 · .json · Public domain