Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank

United States Supreme Court

197 U.S. 356

Keppel  v.  Tiffin Savings Bank

 Argued: and submitted January 6, 1905. --- Decided: April 3, 1905

Charles A. Goetz became a voluntary bankrupt on October 12, 1900. George B. Keppel, the trustee, sued the Tiffin Savings Bank in an Ohio court to cancel two realestate mortgages executed by Goetz, one to secure a note for $4,000 and the other a note for $2,000. The mortgage to secure the $4,000 note was made more than four months before the adjudication in bankruptcy. The mortgage securing the $2,000 note was executed a few days before the bankruptcy, the mortgagor being at the time insolvent and intending to prefer the bank. The bank defended the suit, averring its good faith and asserting the validity of both the securities. In a cross petition the enforcement of both mortgages was prayed. The court held the mortgage securing the $4,000 note to be valid, and the mortgage securing the $2,000 note to be void. The trustee appealed to a circuit court, where a trial de novo was had. At such trial the attorney for the bank stated to the court that the bank waived any claim to a preference as to the $2,000 note, but that he could not assent to a judgment to that effect. A judgment was entered sustaining the security for the $4,000 note and avoiding that for the $2,000 note.

The bank subsequently sought to prove that it was a creditor of the estate upon the note for $2,000, and upon two other unsecured notes, aggregating $835. The referee refused to allow the proof, upon the ground that, as the bank had compelled the trustee to sue to cancel the security, and a judgment nullifying it had been obtained, the bank had lost the right to prove any claim against the estate. The district judge, upon review, reversed this ruling. The circuit court of appeals to which the issue was taken, after stating the case as above recited, certified questions for our determination.

Messrs. John C. Royer, Henry Weller, and Bunn & Royer for Keppel.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 357-358 intentionally omitted]

Messrs. George E. Seney, John L. Lott, and Milton Sayler for the bank.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 358-359 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes