In re Arnold
Decision Date | 10 May 1909 |
Parties | In re ARNOLD. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
J. H Felker, for bankrupt.
George B. Rush, for creditors.
Attached to the schedule filed in this case, the bankrupt sets up his claim for exemption, as follows:
The schedule to which this claim of exemption is attached was filed March 27, 1908. On May 28, 1908, it appears that the trustee filed his report setting apart for the bankrupt the exemption as claimed from the stock of goods, and valued the same at $1,600. A list or inventory of the property so set apart from the bankrupt's stock of merchandise filed by the trustee is in the record sent to the District Court by the referee. It shows various articles of merchandise such as would be kept in the stock of a general dealer.
There seems to have been no objection filed to the trustee's action in setting apart the exemption, except that there appears to have been some difference between the trustee and the bankrupt as to the value of the goods so allowed the bankrupt. Counsel for the trustee claim that the goods so selected and set apart were moved and placed in a separate part of the store. This I understand to be denied by the counsel for the bankrupt, and the record is silent on the subject; but, whatever may be true about this, there is no doubt that particular and specific articles were designated and set apart.
In this stage of the matter, and while there was some controversy between the bankrupt and the trustee as to the valuation of the goods so set apart, it was agreed that it would be to the interest of both the bankrupt and the creditors that the stock should be sold as an entirety, and that it should be left for the district judge to decide whether or not the bankrupt is entitled to $1,600, as claimed by him, or the pro rata part of the proceeds arising from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Donahey
... ... to determine their value, it enabled them to be charged with ... a proportionate share of the loss, upon their being disposed ... afterwards at a forced sale indiscriminately with others, ... which is important. In re Ansley Brothers (D.C.) 18 ... Am.Bankr.Rep. 457, 153 F. 983; In re Arnold (D.C.) ... 22 Am.Bankr.Rep. 392, 169 F. 1000 ... This is ... not to say that a specification of the goods could not be ... waived, and a claim, such as is here made, be accepted as ... sufficient, all parties consenting. But there is nothing here ... on which anything of that kind ... ...
-
In re Moore
... ... by the learned referee is not only correct in principle, for ... the reasons pointed out by him, but in accord with the weight ... of authority and in conformity with the views of the Court of ... Appeals for this Circuit. In re Stitt, supra; In re Crum ... (D.C.) 221 F. 729; In re Arnold (D.C.) 169 F ... 1000; In re Ansley Brothers (D.C.) 153 F. 983; ... In re Richard (D.C.) 94 F. 633 ... It ... follows that the order complained of must be affirmed; and it ... is so ... ...
-
In re Rollins Boot Shop, 67.
...of the homesteads in full, it was prorated by the trustee between the two claims of homestead. The referee, on the authority of In re Arnold (D. C.) 169 F. 1000, held that the exemptions must stand their proportion of the shrinkage on sale from the inventory value, being about 65 per cent.,......