executory. With this we agree. It also argues that because the floor is to be installed to the satisfaction of Bankrupt, it is a sale on approval. While we disagree with this clever, but sophistic argument, we do not find it necessary to discuss it as the first argument is dispositive of Petitioner's claim.
The Referee's opinion states that he finds this to have been a severable contract, one part for delivery, and one for installation. He goes on to note that one quarter of the floor has yet to be installed, and that "that small phase of the contract remains executory". We find that that one small phase is sufficient to recognize Petitioner's claim.
Petitioner cites to the Court the case of In Re Thornton Co., 11 F.2d 669 (M.D. Pa. 1926). Petitioner there had contracted with the bankrupt to deliver and install material for a coal breaker building, and to erect it. While the material was still on the ground, and before any part of the building had been erected, the Thornton Company was adjudicated a bankrupt. The court there found that it was confronted not with a contract of sale, but rather one to deliver and erect a building, and that title had not passed to the bankrupt. While this characterization of the transaction goes against Petitioner's description of the instant dealings, we find authority for our position in this case. We note also that while this is not in recent authority, it is a case in no way contradicted by later decisions.
Later authority for our position may be found in Collier on Bankruptcy, 14 Ed. Vol. 4A, § 70.43, where it is said that, "[as] long as there remains any part of a contract unperformed, the contract is executory, and subdivision b of § 70 [of the Bankruptcy Act] even emphasizes this broad scope of the term by speaking of contracts of the bankrupt that are executory 'in whole or in part'."
And now, to wit, this 29th day of March, A.D., 1971, it is ordered that the petition of Liskey Aluminum, Inc. be remanded to the Referee in Bankruptcy for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
And it is so ordered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.