Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
MILLER v. HATFIELD, TRUSTEE IN FARMER DEBTOR BANKRUPTCY, et al., 1940 — 309 U.S. 1 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
MILLER v. HATFIELD, TRUSTEE IN FARMER DEBTOR BANKRUPTCY, et al.
309 U.S. 160 S. Ct. 374·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MILLER v. HATFIELD, TRUSTEE IN FARMER DEBTOR BANKRUPTCY, et al.
No. 237.
Argued January 5, 1940.
Decided January 15, 1940.
Mr. Elmer McClain for petitioner.
Mr. Kent W. Hughes, with whom Mr. H. E. Garling was on the brief, for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
This 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.
A 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 dismissed 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.
We 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.
The decree is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.