In re Gerber
Decision Date | 06 February 1911 |
Docket Number | 1,871. |
Citation | 186 F. 693 |
Parties | In re GERBER. [1] v. PARKER. FREEDMAN BROS. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
The bankrupt was a retail dealer in women's wearing apparel in the city of Seattle, and was adjudged bankrupt May 19 1909, by the court below. His schedules of assets and liabilities were filed May 27, 1909.
The bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418)), provides that it shall not affect the allowance to bankrupts of the exemptions which are prescribed by the state laws in force at the time of the filing of the petition in the state wherein they have had their domicile for the six months, or the greater portion thereof, immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
The state statute applicable to the case is found in subdivision 4 of section 563 of Remington and Ballinger's Annotated Codes and Statutes of Washington, which reads as follows
He also claimed in the schedule mentioned $250 in cash by virtue of the above provision of the statute of the state of Washington concerning animals, and also, by virtue of the same statute 'a sufficient sum out of the assets of his estate for provisions for himself and his family for a period of six months,' and also claimed certain real estate acquired by him, as hereinafter stated, as a homestead. A trustee of the estate was selected. On the 8th of July, 1909, the bankrupt filed with the referee in bankruptcy a petition asking an order directing the trustee to set aside to him the property so claimed by him as exempt, in response to which petition the trustee, on the 12th of October, 1909, filed with the referee a report, designating and setting aside to the bankrupt all of the property so claimed as exempt, to wit, the wearing apparel and household furniture, $250 in money by virtue of the above section of the statute of Washington in lieu of cows, swine, bees, and fowls, $25 a month, aggregating $150, for the maintenance of the bankrupt and his family for six months, and also the real property claimed as a homestead.
Within 20 days after the filing of the trustee's report of such exemptions, a number of the creditors of the bankrupt joined in filing exceptions thereto, directed only to the allowance of the cash exemptions and the homestead. With respect to the cash exemptions the exceptions were based upon the contention that at the time the bankrupt filed his schedules the property of his estate was still in specie, and the bankrupt had ample opportunity to make his selections from such existing property; that he had no right to claim money in lieu of goods; and that by failing to make his selection at the time and in the manner provided by law he had waived such exemption. In respect to the cash allowance for the maintenance of the bankrupt and his family for six months, the contention of the creditors was that the statute of Washington does not authorize exemptions in lieu of provisions and fuel, either in money or property. The homestead allowance was excepted to on the ground that the bankrupt had acquired the homestead in contemplation of his immediate adjudication as a bankrupt and in pursuance of a scheme to defraud his creditors.
The issues thus formed were heard by the referee, who found and decided as follows: That, as to the lieu exemptions allowed by the trustee, the facts were that no claim for specific property in lieu of the animals and supplies was made by or on behalf of the bankrupt; his only claim being for a cash allowance. That the specific property which he might have claimed on account of such lieu exemptions was sold by the trustee, and not more than 60 per cent. of its value obtained therefor upon such sale. That in view of those facts the referee was of opinion, and so held, that the bankrupt should only receive in cash 60 per cent. of the amount to which he would have been entitled in specific property had he made claim therefor, and was therefore entitled to $150 in cash out of the proceeds of the property sold by the trustee. 'That as to the exemptions of property necessary for his maintenance, the statute not having provided any amount in lieu thereof, there seemed to be no guide to aid in determining how much cash he would be entitled to instead of specific property if he had made claim therefor; but the same reasons would obtain for reducing the cash allowance on this account as for that claimed in lieu of certain animals, and the referee agreeing with the trustee that $25 per month would have been a fair allowance if taken in property, 60 per cent. thereof, or $15 per month, would be a fair allowance in cash. ' For the reasons stated, the referee reduced the aforesaid allowances made by the trustee to $150 and $90, respectively.
With regard to the homestead claim, the findings of fact and conclusions of the referee were as follows:
Upon petition to the court below for a revision of the foregoing decision of the referee, the court confirmed that decision, and hence the proceedings here.
Leopold M. Stern, for petitioner.
James B. Kinne, for bankrupt.
Henry F. McClure, Walter A. McClure, and Wm. E. McClure, for respondents.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
ROSS Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The motion to dismiss the petition for review is without merit and is denied.
While it is well-established law that exemptions in behalf of unfortunate debtors are to be liberally construed in furtherance of the object of such statutes, it should never be forgotten that courts have not the power to legislate, and can no more add an exemption not fairly within the statute than they can take from the statute. So also must it be remembered that courts of bankruptcy proceed upon equitable principles, and should no more sustain a positive fraud than would a court of equity. In respect to this homestead claim both the referee and the District Court expressly recognized its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Beverly
...the property into exempt status entailed fraud. E.g., Miguel v. Walsh, 447 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir.1971); Freedman Bros. Co. v. Parker (In re Gerber), 186 F. 693, 696-97 (9th Cir.1911); 1A JAMES WM. MOORE, COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 6.11[3] (Lawrence P. King, ed., 14th ed. 1978) ("COLLIER 14th ......
-
McRaney v. Riley
... ... The ... forms were duly prepared and will be found in Collier on ... Bankruptcy (12 Ed.), page 1225-1451. It has been well settled ... that these rules and forms, having been adopted in pursuance ... of an act of Congress, have the force of law. In re ... Gerber (C. C. A.), 186 F. 693; Sabin v. Blake, ... 223 F. 501; Falk v. Stiner (C. C. A.), 165 F. 861; ... Mahoney v. Ward (D. C.), 100 F. 278, authorities on ... this question could be cited without number, but the ... foregoing are sufficient to establish the general rule ... The ... ...
-
In re Dudley, 44706.
...775; Stein v. Bostian, 8 Cir., 1943, 133 F. 2d 586, 589; Negin v. Salomon, 2 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 112, 161 A.L.R. 1005. 14 In re Gerber, 9 Cir., 1911, 186 F. 693; Kangas v. Robie, 8 Cir., 1920, 264 F. 92, are illustrative of the cases on which the Gorman opinion is 15 Baumbaugh v. Los Angel......
-
Genovevo Nino v. Moyer
...such exemptions in accordance with the requirements of the 1898 Act could result in a loss of such rights. See, e.g., In re Gerber, 186 F. 693, 700 (9th Cir.1911); In re Gunzberger, 268 F. 673 (M.D.Pa.1920) (noting that Pennsylvania law makes the exemption at issue personal and waivable); I......