Page images
PDF
EPUB

of C., who had not proved his debt, sold the land under his power. Held, that A.'s assignee could maintain a bill to set the sale aside. - Davis v. Carpenter (Mo. E. D.), 2 B. R. 125.

4. A creditor secured by a deed of trust allowed to prove his debt, and the trustee ordered to sell the estate. - In re F. Rühle (Mo. E. D.), 2 B. R. 175; 8. c. 1 Ch. L. N. 186; 4 Pitts. L. J. (N. 8.) 5 (May 3, 1869); 2 L. T. B. 59. 5. A creditor whose debt is secured by a deed of trust on property of his debtor, has no right, after the bankruptcy of his debtor, to sell under the deed of trust, but if he does sell for a fair price, the court, on proof of his debt, and payment of cost, may confirm the sale. - Lee v. Franklin Ave. German Savings

Inst. (Mo. E. D.) 3 B. R. 53; s. c. 1 Ch. L. N. 370.

6. A vendor's lien does not pass to the transferee of the note given for the purchase-money. — In re S. W. Brooks (Ga. S. D.), 2 B. R. 149.

See ASSIGNEE, II. 3; III. 1, 13; IV. 1; CIRCUIT COURT, 4; CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT; CREDITOR'S PETITION, 3; EXECUTION, 1, 2; FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE, 6, 12; JUDGMENT; LIEN; MORTGAGE, 1, 2; PROOF, I. 3–7; RENT, 2; SALE OF INCUMBERED PROPERTY; STAY OF Proceedings, 2.

SET OFF. See CREDITOR'S PETITION, 10; FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE, 14. SHERIFF. See PROCESS.

[ocr errors]

SPECIFICATIONS.

1. Specification of opposition to discharge should be sufficiently definite and certain to show that there is a fair question, necessary to be determined on evidence outside the papers before a discharge ought to be granted. — In re S. D. Waggoner (N. Y. S. D.), 1 Bened. 532.

2. Specifications in opposition to discharge held insufficient, as vague and conflicting. A charge of concealing assets should allege that the concealment was wilful. That the assignee has set aside too much property as exempt, is no ground for refusing a discharge. Specifications should set forth the facts relied on for defeating the discharge distinctly and not by inference. — In re J. D. Eidom (Tex. W. D.), 3 B. R. 27.

3. A mere consignment to an agent is not a transfer, but it may be a removal of property out of the district, and so ground for refusing a discharge; but if it be alleged that such removal was made in contemplation of bankruptcy, such allegation, though it need not have been made, yet being made, must be proved. – Hammond v. Coolidge (Mass. D.), 3 B. R. 71.

4. A demurrer to a specification in opposition to a discharge, grounded on the removal of property from the district, was sustained, (1) because it did not allege that the creditor had proved his debt, or was (2) a creditor at the time of the removal; and (3) because the specification was too vague. [Citing In re Rathbone, 1 B. R. 50.]—In re Burk (Oregon D.), 3 B. R. 76; s. c. 2 L. T. B. 45.

5. A creditor omitted, through inadvertence, to file his specifications of opposition to the discharge until after the lapse of ten days from the return day of the order to show cause. The court allowed him to file them as of a time within the ten days. In re H. H. Grefe (N. Y. S. D.), 2 B. R. 106.

See ATTORNEY, 2; BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, 7; DISCHARGE, III. 7-9; FEES, V. 6; TRIAL BY JURY, 1

STAMP.

A power of attorney to represent creditors requires no stamp. In re B. H. Myrick (Ga. S. D.), 3 B. R. 38.

STATE COURTS.-See ARREST; ASSIGNEE, III. 6; FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE, 16; INJUNCTION, 4; STATE PROCESS; STATE INSOLVENT LAWS; STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

STATE EXEMPTION LAWS.

See EXEMPTED PROPERTY, 3–10.

STATE INSOLVENT Laws.

1. A State insolvent law is suspended by the Bankrupt Law, though the petitioner, under the State law, alleges that his assets are not sufficient to pay fifty per cent of his debts, and that he has reason to believe that a majority of his creditors would not assent to his discharge. [Citing Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Ex parte Eames, 2 Story, 322; Larrabee v. Talbott, 5 Gill, 426; Comm. v. O'Hara, 6 I. R. R. 125; s. c. 6 Am. Law Reg. (N. s.) 765; Perry v. Langley, 1 B. R. 155.] · Van Nostrand v. Barr (Md. State Ct. of Appeals), 2 B. R. 154; s. c. 1 Balt. Trans. 154; sub nom. Van Nostrand v. Carr.

2. A State insolvent law is not suspended as between citizens of the same State by the Bankrupt Act, and therefore, in a suit by a citizen of one State against a citizen of the same State, a discharge under a State insolvent law, granted on a petition filed after the passage of the Bankrupt Act, is good. [Citing Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 369; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 348; s. c. Ib. 643; Van Nostrand v. Barr, 2 B. R. 154.]— Cassard v. Kroner (Balt. City Court), 2 Balt. Trans. 308.

[ocr errors]

3. A voluntary assignment to trustees for the benefit of creditors under a State insolvent law, untainted by fraud, either against creditors or the Bankrupt Act, is valid. [Citing Griswold v. Pratt, 9 Met. 16; Ex parte Ziegenfuss, 2 Ired. 463; Sedgwick v. Place, 1 B. R. 204.] — In re G. A. Hawkins (Conn. State Ct. of Errors), 2 B. R. 122; s. c. 34 Conn. 548; 8 Am. Law Reg. (N. s.) 205 et n.

4. The Pennsylvania domestic attachment law, at least in cases where the indebtedness of the defendant amounts to $250, is suspended by the Bankrupt Act. · Tobin v. Trump (Pa. State Dist. Court), 26 Leg. Int. 317.

See ACT OF BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3; BANKRUPT ACT, WHEN IT TAKES EFFECT, 3, 4; CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS, 3.

STATE PROCESS. - See ARREST; ASSIGNEE, III. 3, 5; DISCHARGE, V. 3.

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.

1. Semble, that the court will enjoin a suit to foreclose a mortgage on land of the bankrupt, which was begun in a State court after the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. Whether it will enjoin such suit brought before the bankruptcy proceedings, quære In re N. Y. Kerosene Co. (N. Y. E. D. C. C.), 3 B. R. 31; s. c. 2 Balt. Trans. 883. 2. An injunction restraining creditors from proceeding to collect the amount of judgments, under which they had levied on the bankrupt's property before adjudication, was dissolved; it appearing that the value of the property levied on did not exceed the amount of the judgments, and the assignee having taken no

steps in the matter since the granting of the injunction, many months previous. Whether the court has power to take property out of the hands of the sheriff on which he has duly levied, quære. In re J. G. Wilbur (N. Y. E. D.), 3 B. R. 71; s. c. 2 Am. L. T. 71; 1 Bened. 527.

See ARREST, 3; ASSIGNEE, III. 4, 7, 9; INJUNCTION, 1, 4; PARTNERSHIP, 7.

SUFFERING PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN.

1. If a debtor, being insolvent, or in contemplation of insolvency, and being threatened with judgment and execution, does not go into voluntary bankruptcy, but allows the execution to be levied, he suffers his property to be taken on legal process, and if the effect is to give a preference, he is presumed to have intended to do so, and the burden of proof is on him to show that he did not. - In re H. E. Dibblee (N. Y. S. D.), 2 B. R. 185.

[ocr errors]

2. A., having a debt of $300 due him, gave B., to whom he owed $60, a note for $300, to the end that B. might sue him on the note, and attach the $300 debt, so that D., another creditor, might not attach the debt. Held, that though the intent was to defeat D. only, and not creditors generally, yet that it was procuring property to be taken on legal process, with intent to give a preference, and, A. being insolvent, it was an act of bankruptcy. Semble, it was also a concealment of property to avoid its being attached. [Citing O'Neil v. Glover, 5 Gray, 144.] — In re G. Williams (Mass. D.), 3 B. R. 74.

3. If an insolvent debtor suffers his property to be taken on legal process, so that the natural and probable result will be to give a creditor a preference, he will be presumed to have intended to give a preference; and if he could have prevented the taking by filing his voluntary petition in bankruptcy, and has not done 80, he must be held to have "suffered" the property to be taken within the meaning of § 39. [Citing In re Black, 1 B. R. 81; Avery v. Johann, 3 B. R. 36; In re Randall, 3 B. R. 4; Armstrong v. Rickey, 2 B. R. 150.] — In re J. L. Wells (Nev. D.), 3 B. R. 95; s. c. 2 Ch. L. N. 49.

See CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT; FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE, 7, 8.

SUITS BY AND AGAINST BANKRUPT.-See ARREST; CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT; DISCHARGE, V. 3; DISMISSAL OF PETITION; FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE, 15, 16; SUFFERING PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN.

SUPERSEDING PROCEEDINGS.

[ocr errors]

See TRUSTEE.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1. Creditors are entitled to a trial by jury on their specifications of opposition to the discharge, though they have not specially prayed it. — In re J. H. Lawson (Md. D.), 2 B. R. 125.

2. In involuntary bankruptcy, the proceedings on the return day of the order to the debtor may, by consent of parties, be adjourned in all respects as if the adjourned day were the return day. Whether, without the consent of parties, a jury can be demanded on any day but the return day, quære. — In re G. Pupke (N. Y. S. D.),1 Bened. 342.

See FEES, V. 6; PLEADING.

TRUSTEE.

1. A resolution appointing a trustee and committee to wind up the estate under § 43 not confirmed, because, (1) the committee consisted only of the trustee and one other member; (2) because the trustee was father and accommodation indorser of the bankrupt; (3) because the other member of the committee had become a creditor by buying up claims against the estate. Form. 63 should have the affidavit of the bankrupt as well as the certificate of the register. — In re W. Stillwell (N. Y. N. D.), 2 B. R. 164.

2. On the question of the confirmation of a resolution for the appointment of a trustee under § 43, which was opposed, the parties desiring the confirmation were held the moving parties, and were ordered to file and serve such papers as they saw fit in support of their motion within a week, the opposing party to have two weeks to file and serve papers in opposition. — In re Am. Water-proof Cloth Co. (N. Y. E. D.) 3 B. R. 74; s. c. 1 Bened. 526.

VARIANCE. See BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, 7.

[blocks in formation]

WARRANT.-See FEES, II.; FIRST MEETING; INJUNCTION, 5.

WIFE.-See CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS, 1, 5; EXAMINATION, 6, 7, 10-12; PROOF, I. 2; WITNESS, 2.

WITNESS.

1. A witness, summoned by a creditor, has no right to be attended by counsel at his examination. [Citing In re Fredenburg, 1 B. R. 34.] —In re R. Feinberg (N. Y. S. D.), 2 B. R. 137.

2. The bankrupt's wife having failed to obey a subpœna as a witness, the court issued an order to show cause why a warrant should not issue against her. In re G. S. Bellis (N. Y. S. D.), 3 B. R. 65; s. c. 2 Am. L. T. 170.

3. An attachment of witnesses for refusal to answer certain questions on an examination under a commission refused; the commission not being accompanied with interrogatories, nor stating the subjects of inquiry. In re S. Glaser (N. Y. S. D. C. C.), 2 B. R. 129.

See EXAMINATION, 10-15.

BOOK NOTICES.

The Public Land Laws of the United States; with Instructions and Decisions
appertaining thereto; and all the Congressional and Legislative Acts relating
to the Public Lands, in the States of California, Oregon, Nevada, Kansas, and
Nebraska, and the Territories of Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana,
Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Dakotah, New Mexico, and Arizona, with an
Introduction to each; together with Practice, Forms, and an Appendix. By
JAMES C. ZABRISKIE, Attorney-at-law. San Francisco: H. H. Bancroft &
Company. 1870.

THIS thick volume, of near twelve hundred pages, gives not merely the laws relative to the public lands of the United States, but much miscellaneous information with regard to these lands themselves. Here in the East the Land Law of the United States is almost unknown to the profession, or is, at the most, like the Civil Law, matter rather of liberal curiosity than of practical interest; but, in the Western States, especially in those settled within the last twenty years, it is matter of prime importance; and in the newly settled States it must form the principal part of the law of real property. Of course, as each community becomes older, the need of investigating the original titles becomes, by reason of the Statutes of Limitation, less and less every year; but when we learn, as we do from Mr. Zabriskie's book, that there are 67,253,032 acres of surveyed lands, belonging to the United States, unsold, to say nothing of the vast regions estimated to contain 1,338,113,642 acres, which have not been even surveyed for sale, it is evident that the land laws are destined to fill, in future, a larger rather than a smaller place in the national jurisprudence.

In this treatise are given the acts of Congress touching the public lands under the several heads of General Laws; Pre-emption Claims; Homesteads; Coal Lands and Town Sites; Mineral Lands; Railroads; Indian Scrip; Swamp and Overflowed Lands; Military Bounty Lands and Warrants; Land Patents; School and Internal Improvement Land Selections, &c., &c. Under each head, besides the acts of Congress, are given the instructions and opinions of the government officers, particularly of the Land Commissioner, relative to the matter in hand, and also under the title of Judicial Decisions, a digest of the cases on the same subject. It would have been more convenient had these last been put together in one place, and there classified under the appropriate heads; under the present arrangement, we have now to turn to twenty or more places.

After the laws which are applicable to the public lands wherever situated, are given the acts of Congress relative to the lands in each of the States or Territories whose names are given on the title-page, and also the statutes on the same subject, passed by the State or Territorial legislatures.

There are also very full reports of the mode of surveying, and the extent of the surveys in the States, and brief accounts of the climate, soil, &c., of the different sections; these last are, however, very properly kept in subordination to the main subject of the book.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »