In re Pate
| Decision Date | 30 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | 7259. |
| Citation | 293 F. 648 |
| Parties | In re PATE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Etheridge Sams & Etheridge, of Atlanta, Ga., for bankrupt.
Douglas & Douglas and Wm. C. Henson, of Atlanta, Ga., for objectors.
An involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed against Dan C Pate. On July 12, 1921 he filed his schedules; Schedule B (5), signed by him reading as follows:
'A particular statement of the property claimed as exempted from the operation of the act of Congress relating to bankruptcy: None.'
On August 11, 1921, he was permitted to amend his schedules by listing other creditors. On October 28, 1922, he was duly discharged. On August 29, 1923, he was allowed to amend his schedules by setting up that he was the head of a family and entitled to a homestead, and praying that the assets listed in his original schedules be set apart to him as exempt, or the proceeds thereof in case of sale. The referee, after hearing, permitted this to be done, and his order is under review.
Section 6 of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. Sec. 9590) provides that the act shall not affect the allowance to bankrupts of the exemptions prescribed by the state laws. Section 7 (8), being Comp. St. Sec. 9591, directs that the bankrupt, in a limited time, file his schedules, in which shall be included a claim for such exemption as he may be entitled to. The duty of the trustee under section 47 (Comp. St. Sec. 9631) to set apart the bankrupt's exemption depends upon such an application being made; otherwise, the trustee could not know that the bankrupt was entitled to an exemption or the property in which it was claimed. A failure by mere omission to claim the exemption will not defeat it, certainly not where the omission was the result of some mistake. In re Goodman, 174 F. 644, 98 C.C.A. 398. In that case the omission to claim was through mistake, and is stated not to have amounted to a waiver of the exemption, either in intention or in express terms, and the mistake was said to be relievable by amendment at any seasonable time, while the property remained in the hands of the trustee, unaffected by adverse rights. Under this ruling, if assets were discovered after the filing of the schedules, of which the bankrupt had no previous knowledge, perhaps such an amendment might be entertained. But here no mistake of any kind is claimed, and the assets now sought to be exempted were included...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Rogers, 36027.
... ... In re Sussman, D.C., 183 F. 331; In re Hupp, D.C., 43 F.2d 159; In re Coddington, D.C., 126 F. 891, 893; In re White D.C., 109 F. 635, 637; In re Wishnefsky, D.C., 181 F. 896, 898; In re Medved, D.C., 17 F. Supp. 639; In re Wunder, D.C., 133 F. 821; In re Burnham, D.C., 202 F. 762; In re Pate, D.C., 293 F. 648; In re Long, D.C., 116 F. 113; In re Evans, D.C., 116 F. 909 ... On September 22, 1938, the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, by what is known as the Chandler Act, supra, became effective, and Section 6 of that Act, Title 11, Section 24, U.S.C.A., as so amended, ... ...
-
Potts v. Owens Hardware Co
...case should accompany the same, and cannot be allowed where it was not made until after the bankrupt had obtained his discharge." In re Pate (D. C.) 293 F. 648, it was said by Judge Sibley: "Formal renunciation by a bankrupt in his schedules of any claim to exemptions, without mistake, beco......