In re Martin Bros.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1923 |
| Citation | 294 F. 368 |
| Parties | In re MARTIN BROS. Intervention of LUNN-SWEET & CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
R. L J. & S. J. Smith, Jr., of Commerce, Ga., for intervener.
Erwin Erwin & Nix and S. C. Upson, all of Athens, Ga., for respondent.
Dink Martin and Vinus Martin, partners, were adjudicated bankrupts January 23, on a petition filed January 2, 1923. Each in his schedules claimed the homestead exemption of $1,600 allowed by the Georgia laws to heads of families. Before these were set apart, each amended his schedules by renouncing the homestead. Thereupon Lunn-Sweet & Co. petitioned the court setting up that they were holders of notes against the bankrupts for $1,113.40 principal, dated September 1, 1922, by the terms of which a sufficient amount of the exemptions to pay the same had been transferred to them, and they prayed that such amount be set aside and paid over to them. The notes are a printed form, which contains, besides the usual homestead waiver, these words:
The referee refused to entertain the petition and his ruling is under review.
In Re Bowers (D.C.) 278 F. 681, affirmed as to reasoning and result under the name of McWhorter v Barnes (C.C.A.) 283 F. 1022, it was held that a bankrupt might, by amendment of his schedules, withdraw his claim for an exemption over the objection of creditors who had homestead waivers, and who had obtained a receivership for the administration of the exempted property. Under recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia, transfers of the exempted property, even when executed in advance of the application for the exemption in the bankruptcy court, have been held valid and enforceable. In Re Arnall, 285 F. 654, it was held in this court that it was not a valid objection to the exemption on the part of trustee or creditors that such a transfer had been made, they having no interest in the disposition the bankrupt might make of his exemption, and such disposition being controlled by the state law. It was there suggested, however, that the bankruptcy court might well refuse to deliver the homestead to any one save the homesteader himself, or his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
I.H. Kent Co. v. Miller
...estate than is secured by other general creditors.' 2 It is interesting to note the language of the District Court N.D.Ga., In re Martin Bros., 294 F. 368, 370, as follows: 'No one in the state court could prosecute or compel the prosecution of a homestead application, save the head of the ......
-
Kronstadt v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank of Savannah
...be completed, and that the proceeds of the exempt property be applied to its debt. The referee held, on the authority of In re Martin Bros. (D.C.) 294 F. 368, that the renunciation was effective. He denied the bankrupt's claim. The District Judge thought it ineffective as to the bank. Rever......
-
Mims v. Dixie Finance Corp.
...property. The reason is that the assignment does not sufficiently describe the property that may become exempt. In In re Martin, 294 F. 368 (N.D.Ga.1923) (Sibley, D. J.), the court was dealing with a waiver note. The court said (at page 370): His paper does not purport to transfer any speci......
-
Novak v. O'NEAL
...but no question as to the other party is in any wise involved and the proceeding will be treated as if that of Furst only. 2 In re Martin Bros., D.C., 294 F. 368; Leiter v. Steinbach, 5 Cir., 184 F.2d 751, 754; Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U.S. 294, 23 S.Ct. 751, 47 L.Ed. 1061; Chicago, B......