In re McUlta
| Decision Date | 27 June 1911 |
| Docket Number | 1,791. |
| Citation | 189 F. 250 |
| Parties | In re McULTA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Sprout & Cupp, for claimant.
Ames & Hammond, for exceptants.
The report of the learned referee contains a satisfactory discussion of the questions submitted, and I need only say that I agree with his reasoning and conclusions, in support of which I will add the thought, moreover, that if the changed name was assumed by the bankrupt in fraud of any one, it clearly appears that it is independent of his creditors, its taints do not run in the veins of the transaction before the court, and hence do not corrupt the current. It does not follow that a party who is a rogue in his other dealings shall be deprived of his rights in another transaction wherein he has been without fault. It is only where the fraud do inhere in the very transaction itself, by its intended effect preventing the collection of the debt, that the fraudulent debtor can claim no right of exemption under the law. The order of the referee is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Anderson v. Sharp
-
Jttonali One-Eye El-Bey v. Sylvester
... ... support use of his chosen name. In addition to religious ... and/or sovereign citizen beliefs, Plaintiff cites to a ... variety of authorities, including a 1911 Pennsylvania case, ... to support his asserted common law name change. See In re ... McUlta , 189 F. 250 (D.C. Pa. 1911) (“At common law ... a man may lawfully change his name and will be bound by any ... contract into which he enters under his adopted or reputed ... name; and by such name he may sue and be sued.”) ... However, much of the authority on which ... ...