In re Stephens

• Decision Date: 15 January 1902
• Docket Number: 677.
• Parties: In re STEPHENS et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

114 F. 192

In re STEPHENS et al.

No. 677.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia.

January 15, 1902

W. C Wright, for bankrupt.

R. W Freeman and R. O. Jones, for objectors.

NEWMAN District Judge.

The bankrupt firm is composed of F. M. Stephens and A. J Stephens. The entire property shown on the schedules, except a small amount of open accounts, is a stock of merchandise. Neither of the bankrupts has a wife or children. They have a mother, who is 63 years of age, and an orphan niece, 9 years of age. The two brothers, mother, and niece live together and constitute one family. Under the constitution and laws of Georgia, it seems that the elder brother, who is the head of a family, the females of which are dependent, would be a person entitled to an exemption. Certainly, however, both brothers cannot claim an exemption with the same beneficiaries, the mother and niece. Conceding it to be true that F. M. Stephens is so situated that he is entitled under the laws of the state to claim an exemption, is he entitled to it out of the firm assets under the facts and circumstances of the case as shown in the record? There is a claim for exemption on the part of both of the bankrupts accompanying the petition in bankruptcy. Each of the bankrupts has selected certain articles of merchandise, an itemized list of which accompanies the schedule. In the case of F. M. Stephens the total amount of merchandise so claimed as an exemption is $1,599.94, and in the case of A. J. Stephens $1,599.84. The trustee set apart the exemptions as claimed. Objection was made to the allowance of the same before the referee, and after hearing the matter he denied the exemption as to both of the partners. This ruling of the referee is certified by him, at the request of the bankrupts, to the district court. Numerous objections were urged by the creditors before the referee against the allowance of these exemptions,-- among others that the purchase price of a part of the goods claimed as an exemption was still due to the creditors who interposed objections; as to A. J. Stephens, because he contributed nothing to the partnership business; as to F. M. Stephens, because he contributed less than $1,600; and by some of the creditors, upon the ground that they held notes containing waiver of homestead and exemption. Another objection, and a most important one, was, substantially and in effect, that the bankrupts were not in position to...