Jennings v. William A. Stannus & Son

• Decision Date: 06 November 1911
• Docket Number: 2,008.
• Citation: 191 F. 347
• Parties: JENNINGS v. WILLIAM A. STANNUS & SON. In re WILLIAM A. STANNUS & SON.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

191 F. 347

JENNINGS v. WILLIAM A. STANNUS & SON.

In re WILLIAM A. STANNUS & SON.

No. 2,008.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

November 6, 1911

This is a petition for revision of the order and judgment of the District Court made in bankruptcy. It appears from the record that William A. Stannus made and filed a petition in bankruptcy in his own behalf and also in behalf of the copartnership of William A. Stannus & Son, which firm consists of petitioner and his son, Aaron Stannus; the latter being a minor of the age of 19 years. Insolvency was shown and the willingness of the copartnership and of William A Stannus, individually, to be adjudged bankrupts asserted. The usual schedule, marked 'B,' accompanies the petition which contains an inventory of all the property of petitioner, both individually and of said partnership. In this schedule is set forth a list of certain partnership assets, which the petitioner, being a householder, claims as exempt, by virtue of the statute of Washington, to the amount of $250, in lieu of certain animals, provisions, and fuel for the maintenance of the household, and feed for the animals for the period of six months. In addition, petitioner claims as exempt certain household furniture, supplies, and wearing apparel. The trustee interposed objections to the allowance of the exemptions claimed, and the matter was submitted to the referee in bankruptcy for his decision. The referee disallowed the claim of the petitioner for the list of merchandise, in lieu of the animals, provisions, etc. On review to the District Court, the finding and order of the referee was reversed. The purpose of the present petition is to have reviewed the decision of the court in that respect.

Leopold M. Stern and H. E. Porter, for petitioner.

F. B. Carpenter, for respondent.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District judge.

WOLVERTON District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The sole question presented for our determination is whether the partnership assets of William A. Stannus & Son, to the amount of $250, are exempt from the operation of the bankruptcy proceeding, in lieu of the animals, provisions, and feed to which a householder is entitled under the statutes of Washington as exempt from execution.

The bankrupt is entitled, under the sixth section of the bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 548 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3424), to such exemptions of property as are exempt to the debtor from execution and levy under the local statutes, and under the forty-seventh section of the act it is made the duty of the trustee to set aside such exemptions for the benefit of the bankrupt and make report thereof to the court. Hughes' Fed. Proc. 145. As a rule, the federal courts are governed by state construction of local exemption statutes; but, in the absence of such construction, they will adopt their own interpretation.

It is declared by the statutes of Washington that:

'The following property shall be exempt from execution and attachment, except as hereinafter specially provided: * * * (4) To each householder, two cows, with their calves, * * * and provisions and fuel for the comfortable maintenance of such householder and family for six months, also feed for such animals for six months: Provided, that in case such householder shall not possess or shall not desire to retain the animals above named, he may select from his property and retain other property not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, coin, in value. ' Section 563, subd. 4, Rem. & Bal. Ann. Codes & Stats. of Washington.

The statute here deals with individuals, and apparently with individual property. No mention is made of partners, or of exemption of partnership property for the benefit of individual members of a firm. We have been cited to no construction of the statute, respecting the rights of partners to the exemption, by the Supreme Court of the state of Washington. Hence this court must determine the question for itself. The adjudicated cases upon the general proposition are not uniform, but the great weight of authority seems to be against the right of the partners to the exemption. It is so declared in Thurlow v. Warren, 82 Me. 164, 19 A. 158, 17 Am.St.Rep. 472. In Wisconsin it is held that under the Constitution and laws of that state the privilege of exemption is personal to the individual debtor, there being no exemption in favor of partners jointly. Russell v. Lennon, 39 Wis. 570, 20 Am.Rep. 60, overruling Gilman v. Williams, 7 Wis. 329, 76 Am.Dec. 219.

The strong reason in support of this view rests upon the innate difference between the individual and a copartnership as it relates to their respective property rights. Each is a distinct entity. The former holds, by exclusive right subject only to the right of his creditors to...