In re Taylor

Decision Date21 June 1900
Docket Number664.
PartiesIn re TAYLOR. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF MATTOON, ILL., et al. MATTOON NAT. BANK OF MATTOON, ILL.,
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

On the 23d day of October, 1899, the appellees filed in the district court of the United States for the Southern district of Illinois their petition to have Jerome L. Taylor declared an involuntary bankrupt. On the same day there was issued out of the clerk's office an order, directed to Taylor, to show cause why the prayer of said petition should not be granted. There was also issued at the time a subpoena, made returnable on the 31st day of October, 1899. On the 24th day of October the subpoena was served by the United States marshal, by reading and delivering a copy of the same, together with a copy of the petition, to Rosa Taylor, the wife of Jerome L Taylor, at his usual place of abode. On the 26th day of October the appellees filed an amended petition, stating that the appellees are creditors of Taylor, having provable claims amounting in the aggregate, in excess of securities held by them, to the sum of $500, and that Taylor is insolvent, and that within four months next preceding the date of the petition Taylor committed an act of bankruptcy, in that he suffered certain judgments to be taken against him on the 6th day of October, 1899, by the appellant, upon which judgments the appellant caused executions to be issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Coles county. On the 31st day of October the appellant filed its answer to the first amended petition; setting up therein, among other things, that Taylor was a person engaged chiefly in farming or tillage of the soil. To this answer on the 28th day of November, 1899, the appellees filed exceptions, among which was that the appellant cannot set up in defense that Taylor was chiefly engaged in farming and the tillage of the soil. On the 28th day of November the court sustained the exceptions to that portion of the answer of the appellant which alleges that Taylor was engaged chiefly in farming and the tillage of the soil, to which ruling of the court appellant excepted. On January 22, 1900, a second amended petition was filed, in substance similar to the first, with some variations which need not be noted here. To this the appellant filed a special demurrer alleging, among other things, that the same did not negative the fact that the defendant was a person engaged chiefly in farming and the tillage of the soil, and so within the terms and purview of the statute providing for involuntary bankruptcy. This demurrer, after argument, the court overruled; holding that such a plea was a special privilege which no one but the bankrupt could plead or take advantage of, to which ruling the appellant excepted. On the same day the appellant filed its answer to the second amended petition, and therein alleged that Taylor was a person engaged chiefly in farming and the tillage of the soil, and cannot be declared an involuntary bankrupt, and, further answering, denied that Taylor is, or was at the time of the filing of the petition, the filing of the original petition or the first amended petition, or the second amended petition, or at the time said judgments in favor of the appellant were obtained, at the time the executions were issued, at the time the sheriff had set for the sale, or at any time between the said times, insolvent, as defined in the bankruptcy act. Default was then taken on the second amended petition as to Taylor, to which entering of default the appellant excepted. Thereupon the cause was submitted on the pleadings, and, the cause being so submitted and heard by the court, the appellees made motion to have the court, upon the pleadings, adjudge Taylor an involuntary bankrupt, and he was so adjudged, to which ruling and order of the court sustaining said motion and entering such order of adjudication the appellant excepted, and was allowed its bill of exceptions, which was thereupon signed and sealed by the court.

Edward C. Craig, for appellant.

I. B. Craig and James Vause, Jr., for appellees.

Before WOODS and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge.

BUNN District Judge, upon the above statement of facts, .

There are two reasons why we think it was error to adjudge Taylor to be a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Bettendorf v. St. Croix County
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 20 Enero 2011
    ...Supreme Court recognized regulatory takings under the takings clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., In re Taylor, 102 F. 728, 730 (7th Cir.1900) (noting that if appellant had vested right in property in question, it could not be taken away without due process and a hear......
  • In re Elmira Steel Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 17 Abril 1901
    ...... corporation proceeded against is one which by the bankrupt. act may be. But it has been held that, even as against an. individual, a petition in involuntary bankruptcy needs to. allege that the debtor is not a wage earner or farmer. In. re Taylor, 4 Am.Bankr.R. 515, 42 C.C.A. 1, 102 F. 728. And where jurisdiction depends upon a fact, as residence in a. proper case, so necessary is it that the petition state the. fact that a discharge granted in a case where the petition. lacks that averment is invalid and affords no defense in an. ......
  • Kaufman-Brown Potato Co. v. Long, 12390.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 11 Mayo 1950
    ..."jurisdictional facts." Compare Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 1920, 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116, 65 L.Ed. 297; In re Taylor, 7 Cir., 1900, 102 F. 728; C. C. Taft Co. v. Century Savings Bank, 8 Cir., 1905, 141 F. 369; Edelstein v. United States, 8 Cir., 1906, 149 F. 636; In re N......
  • In re Bellah
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • 25 Febrero 1902
    ...omitting to aver that the defendant was not a wage-earner nor a person engaged chiefly in farming or the tillage of the soil. In re Taylor, 42 C.C.A. 1, 102 F. 728. this defect clearly can be corrected by amendment. Under the circumstances I think that the purposes of justice will best be s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT