Cantrell v. Molz-Frick Implement Co. of Wichita, Kan.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 6265.,6265. |
| Parties | Richard L. CANTRELL, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Appellant, v. MOLZ-FRICK IMPLEMENT COMPANY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, and Robert Roth, Bankrupt, Appellees. In the Matter of Robert ROTH, Bankrupt. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
James W. Sargent, of Jochems, Sargent & Blaes, Wichita, Kan., for appellant.
Norman G. Maben, of Blake, Jones, Bell & Maben, Wichita, Kan., for appellees.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the Kansas District Court's affirmance of a referee's ruling that appellee bankrupt farmer's combine is exempt and therefore does not pass to appellant bankruptcy trustee for the benefit of creditors. Appellee MolzFrick Implement Company is the mortgagee of the combine.
Everyone knows that exemptions allowed by state law are preserved in federal bankruptcy proceedings. See Bankruptcy Act, § 6, 11 U.S.C.A. § 24. And, the law of Kansas declares that:
The bankrupt here is a Kansas resident and head of a family, and as an "other person" within the meaning of paragraph eight would be entitled, according to the literal language of the statute, to hold his combine exempt, for it is undoubtedly a "necessary tool or implement * * * for the purpose of carrying on his trade."
Appellant takes the position however, that farmers are limited in their exemptions to those allowed by paragraph six, under which a combine would not be exempt because of the $300 limitation. Reliance is placed upon Printz v. Shepard, 128 Kan. 210, 276 P. 811, in which the court held a farmer's automobile exempt under paragraph six, indicating by its reasoning that it did not consider paragraph eight applicable to farmers. And there is also Kansas authority to the effect that a nonfarmer may not claim farm machinery as an exemption under paragraph six. See Reed v. Cooper, Adm'r, 30 Kan. 574, 575, 1 P. 822. From this appellant argues that paragraphs six and eight are mutually exclusive, six being for farmers, and eight for other persons, and explains that this statutory construction is in accord with the legislative intent not to allow any person exemptions for more than one trade, citing Jenkins v. McNall, 27 Kan. 532. No one contends, however, that appellee farmer is claiming exemptions for any endeavor but farming. And in the comparatively recent case of White Star Machinery & Supply Co. v. Roulston, 178 Kan. 481, 289 P.2d 749, a transaction involving a crawler tractor was held void for reasons unrelated to the exemption law, but upon the assumption that the tractor was exempt under paragraph eight to a man who used it "in his farming operations, but * * also * * * in dirt moving work." Id., 289 P.2d at page 751. In none of these cases, however, was our precise question, whether farmers may claim exemptions under paragraph eight, presented or decided. Nor do we believe that the Kansas court would give them controlling effect or consider them particularly helpful.
We also recognize that other jurisdictions with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cummings
...in all respects. The Bankruptcy Act preserves the exemptions which are allowed by state law. 11 U.S.C. § 24, and Cantrell v. Molz-Frick Implement Company, 10 Cir., 278 F.2d 546. Property which is exempt under state law and which is determined to be exempt by the bankruptcy court is no part ......
-
In re Rice, Bankruptcy No. 82-40478.
...was clearly a tool of trade and clearly not a means of conveyance such as in the case of a combine, see Cantrell v. Molz-Frick Implement Co. of Wichita, 278 F.2d 546 (10th Cir.1960), and where both parties to the loan transaction considered the secured property a tool of the trade, a piece ......