Thomas Tindle v. Clarence Birkett
| Decision Date | 25 March 1907 |
| Docket Number | No. 217,217 |
| Parties | THOMAS TINDLE and Willis K. Jackson, Plffs. in Err., v. CLARENCE T. BIRKETT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Frank Gibbons for plaintiffs in error.
No counsel appeared for defendant in error.
This was an action brought in 1899 to recover damages claimed to have been sustained in consequence of specified false and fraudulent representations made by the firm of which the defendant was survivor, by reason whereof plaintiffs alleged they were deceived into selling goods to defendant's firm, which they otherwise would not have done. The complaint contained three counts, setting up separate items of damages, namely, $349.30, $230.83, and $321.73 for goods sold, and judgment was demanded for the aggregate, with interest on each item.
One of the defenses was that plaintiffs' claims were barred by a discharge in bankruptcy of defendant's firm, to which plaintiffs replied that they were not such as could be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.
The New York court of appeals held that, according to the rulings of this court in Crawford v. Burke, 195 U. S. 176, 49 L. ed. 147, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 9, the alleged indebtedness to plaintiffs was covered by the discharge, and directed plaintiffs' complaint to be dismissed. 183 N. Y. 267, 76 N. E. 25.
This writ of error was then prosecuted, and plaintiffs' counsel contends that their debts were not provable debts, and therefore not discharged, and that Crawford v. Burke might well be modified in view of certain suggestions deemed to be novel.
Sections 17 and 63a of the bankruptcy act of 1898 read as follows:
'(a) Debts of the bankrupt may be proved and allowed against his estate which are (1) a fixed liability, as evidenced by a judgment or an instrument in writing, absolutely owing at the time of the filing of the petition against him, whether then payable or not . . . ; (4) founded upon an open account, or upon a contract expressed or implied; and (5) founded upon provable debts reduced to judgments after the filing of the petition and before the consideration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hubbard v. Bibb Brokerage Co
...and "misappropriation, " as well as "defalcation." Crawford v. Burke, 195 U. S. 176, 25 S. Ct. 9, 49 L. Ed. 147; Tindle v. Birkett, 205 U. S. 183, 27 S. Ct. 493, 51 L. Ed. 762. Any debt, therefore, which the bankrupt created while acting in a fiduciary capacity, is exempt from discharge in ......
-
Erickson v. Richardson, 7885.
...be a bar, inasmuch as plaintiff might have waived the tort and sued in implied assumpsit. This was reaffirmed in Tindle v. Birkett, 205 U.S. 183, 185, 27 S.Ct. 493, 51 L.Ed. 762; Friend v. Talcott, 228 U.S. 27, 37, 38, 33 S.Ct. 505, 57 L.Ed. 718, both cases considering section 63 of the act......
-
Brown v. Keefe
...11 U.S.C. § 103(a)(4), 11 U.S.C.A. § 103(a)(4); Crawford v. Burke, 195 U.S. 176, 25 S.Ct. 9, 49 L.Ed. 147; Tindle v. Birkett, 205 U.S. 183, 184, 27 S.Ct. 493, 51 L.Ed. 762; Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 331, 55 S.Ct. 151, 152, 79 L.Ed. 393), if the other conditions of allowan......
-
Hubbard v. Bibb Brokerage Co.
... ... Burke, 195 U.S. 176, 25 ... S.Ct. 9, 49 L.Ed. 147; Tindle v. Birkett, 205 U.S ... 183, 27 S.Ct. 493, 51 L.Ed. 762. Any debt, ... ...
-
Three and a Half Rules for Tort Claims in (and out of) Chapter 11.
...an action in trover did not preclude provability because the claim could have been proved under [section] 63(a)(4)); Trimble v. Birkett, 205 U.S. 183 (1907) (fraud claim was provable because the claimant could have sued in contract instead). (166) In re Baldwin-United Corp, 55 B.R. 885, 897......