ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

estate and individual estates so as to prevent preferences' and secure the equitable distribution of the property of the several estates.

h In the event of one or more but not all of the members of a partnership being adjudged bankrupt, the partnership property shall not be administered in bankruptcy, unless by consent of the partner or partners not adjudged bankrupt; but such partner or partners not adjudged bankrupt shall settle the partnership business as expeditiously as its nature will permit, and account for the interest of the partner or partners adjudged bankrupt."

SEC. 6. Exemptions of Bankrupts.3-a This act shall not affect the allowance to bankrupts of the exemptions which are prescribed by the State laws in force at the

1See 883 (2, 3), 60 and notes as to preference. Also 67 as to liens. When one partner files a petition for a discharge from both individual and firm debts and is adjudged a bankrupt, but no adjudication is made against the partnership as such, the creditors of the firm may prove their debts against the bankrupt and cause his interest in the firm property to be subjected to the payment thereof under this paragraph (In re Laughlin [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 589). See also 14 as to discharges and 17 as to debts not affected, together with the notes to these sections.

2The partners not to be adjudged bankrupt should be in some manner brought before the court so as to subject them to its jurisdiction. They occupy a position similar to that of debtors. If they neglect to settle up the partnership business and account to the trustee as contemplated, he may have them impleaded with the bankrupt (82 [6]), the court having authority to make such orders, issue such process, and enter such judgments as may be necessary (82 [15]). When a fraudulent preference is attempted to be created by converting an individual obligation into a firm one without consideration, the court will not allow the same to be proved against the partnership estate (In re Jones et al. [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 781). Analogous Provisions: Act 1800 18, 34, 35, 53; Act 1841, 83; Act 1867, 14, as amended by Act of June 8, 1872, Ch. 330; and Act of March 23, 1873, Ch. 235. See 28 as to dower and allowances. The constitutional power by which congress is authorized to enact laws on the subject of bankruptcies (U. S. Const., Art. I, ¿VIII, 4) requires such laws to operate uniformly throughout the United States (In re Silverman, 4 B. R. 523; in re Reiman & Friedlander, 11 B. R. 21; Leidigh Carriage Co. v. Stengel [C. C. A.], 1 N. B. News 296, 387; s. c. 95 Fed. Rep. 637). In Texas, one is entitled to an exemption as high as $5,000, and under certain circumstances much more than that. In Maryland, he is entitled to only $100. If this section means that a bankrupt will be entitled to the State exemption, and there appears to be no other construction put upon the language (In re Rouse, Hazard & Co. [C. C. A.], 1 N. B. News, 75; s. c. 91 Fed. Rep. 96; in re Lange [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 44, 60; s. c. 91 Fed. Rep. 361; in re Tilden [D. C.], I N. B. News, 134; S. c. 91 Fed. Rep. 500; in re Camp [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 142; s. c. 91 Fed. Rep. 745; in re Garden [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 189; s. c. [Sup.

time of the filing of the petition in the State wherein they have had their domicile for the six months or the greater

Ct.], 93 Fed. Rep. 423; s. c. [Sup. Ct.], 1 N. B. News, 298; in re Grimes [D. C.], I N. B. News, 339; s. c. 94 Fed. Rep. 800; in re Coffman [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 326; s. c. 93 Fed. Rep. 422; in re Smith [D. C.], 93 Fed. Rep. 791; in re Richard [D. C.], 94 Fed. Rep. 633; in re Friederick [D. C.], 95 Fed. Rep. 282; in re Hill [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 185; in re Woodruff [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 423; in re Woodard [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 430; in re Peterson [D C.], 1 N. B. News, 430; s. c. 95 Fed. Rep. 417; in re Schiller [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 400; in re Grimes [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 529; iu re Russie [D. C], 96 Fed. Rep. 609; in re Daubner [D_C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 805; in re Thomas [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 828; in re Smith [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 832; in re Baumann [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 946; in re Lentz [D. C.1. 97 Fed. Rep. 486; in re Hoag [D. C.] 97 Fed. Rep. 543: in re Jones [D. C ], 97 Fed. Rep. 773; in re Buelow [D. C.], 98 Fed. Rep. 86; in re Boston [D. C.] 98 Fed. Rep. 587; in re Pope [D. C.], 98 Fed. Rep. 722; in re Harrington [D. C.], 99 Fed. Rep. 390; in re McBryde [D. C.]. 99 Fed. Rep. 686; in re Bean [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 262; in re Duquid et al. [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 274; in re Friedrich et al. [C. C. A.], 100 Fed. Rep. 284; in re Brown [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 441; in re McCulchen [D C.], 100 Fed. Rep 779; in re Diller [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 931; in re Beauchamp et al. [D. C.], 101 Fed. Rep. 106; in re Waxelbaum [D. C.], 101 Fed. Rep. 228; in re Wilson et al. [D. C.], 101 Fed. Rep. 571; in re Lynch [D. C.]. 101 Fed. Rep. 579; in re Hatch [D. C.], 102 Fed. Rep. 280; iu re Myres [D. C.], 102 Fed. Rep. 869; in re Buckingham ]D. C.], 102 Fed. Rep. 972; in re Tobias [D. C.], 103 Fed. Rep. 68), then the bankrupt in Texas could reserve from his creditors fifty times as much as the bankrupt in Maryland would be entitled to withhold. The pro rata dividend to be distributed would be very materially affected by this inequality of exemption. Is there any reasonable construction that can be placed upon this section which will bring it within the requirement of uniform operation throughout the United States? If so, it is constitutional; if not, it is unconstitutional. This question had been raised under the previous act, but the courts do not seem to have agreed upon it (In re Beckerford, 1 Dill. 45; s. c. 4 B. R. 203; in re Smith, 8 B. R. 401; in re Kean & White, 8 B. R. 367; in re Jordan, 8 B. R. 180; in re Deckert, 1 A. L. T. [N. S.], 336; s. c. 10 B. R. 1; s. c. 6 C. L. N. 310; in re Duerson, 13 B. R. 183; in re Dillard, 9 B. R. 8). A voluntary bankrupt must claim his exemption at the time he files his petition, though the same is not to be severed from the remainder of the estate until the same is done by the trustee after the valuation is made (In re Friedrich et al. [C. C. A.], 100 Fed. Rep. 284). Should the valuation be questioned the court may order the trustee to have the exemption re-appraised (In re McBryde [D. C.], 99 Fed. Rep 686).

The title to exempt property does not pass to the trustee, though he is entitled to such possession as will enable him to have it appraised (270a), after which it is his duty to set it apart on the approval of his report thereon by the court (847α[11]), notwithstanding any contrary method prescribed by a state law (In re Camp [D. C.], 1 N. B. News. 142; s. c. 91 Fed. Rep. 745; in re Peterson, 95 Fed. Rep. 417), or any agreement between the bankrupt and creditors that his exemption should be allotted by appraisers, such allotment being the duty of the trustee (In re Grimes [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 529). It has been held, however, that the manner of setting apart the exemption should follow that of the State law so far as possible (In re McCutchen [D C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 779), though the method has been said to be governed by the bankruptcy rather than by the State law (In re Lynch [D. C.], 101 Fed. Rep. 579). If the exemption be such that a partition cannot be made without injury, the property may be sold by the trustee and the exemption paid out of the proceeds (In re Diller [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 931). The

portion thereof immediately preceding the filing of the petition.

trustee has no right to demand a bond of indemnity before setting the exemption apart, and if he sells it, the bankrupt may claim the value of his exemption out of the proceeds (In re Brown [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 441). If the bankrupt fails to select his exemption and the same be sold, it is the duty of the trustee and referee to adopt some plan to correct the mistake (In re Woodard [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 430; s. c. 95 Fed. Rep. 260). Under the former law, a somewhat different rule prevailed, which may still be regarded as a precedent in some jurisdictions, it being held that if he failed to claim his exemptions, his rights thereto would be affected in accordance with the law of the state wherein the exemption arose (Goodale v. Tuttle, 7 B. R. 193). If the bankrupt voluntarily allows his exemption to be sold, that course being for the benefit of the estate, the trustee must allow the bankrupt out of the proceeds of the sale, a sum equal to the value of the exemption (In re Richard [D. C.], 94 Fed. Rep. 633). A bankrupt is not entitled to his exemption as against a judgment note waiving the same (In re Garden [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 189; s. c. 93 Fed Rep. 423). Yet, while the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to enforce the rights of creditors holding notes containing a waiver of the exemption (In re Woodruff [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 423), it will not restrain control over a homestead when so waived (In re Hill [D. C] 96 Fed Rep. 185), but will ordinarily leave the parties to such remedies as they may have in the state court relative to liens on or controversies arising out of the exemption (In re Bass, 3 Woods, 382; in re Camp [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 142; s. c. 91 Fed. Rep. 745).

Each partner is entitled to his exemption out of the partnership property (In re Friederick [D. C.], 95 Fed. Rep. 282; in re Grimes [D. C.] 1 N. B. News, 339; S. c. 94 Fed. Rep. 800), if the State law provides therefor (In re Beauchamp et al. [D. C.], 101 Fed. Rep. 106); but if he be merely a nominal partner and his interest in the partnership assets does not amount to the exemption, then he is not so entitled (In re Camp [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 142; S. c. 91 Fed. Rep. 745). The right to this exemption continues so long as the individual remains a member of the partnership, though he may have entered into an agreement conditioned to withdraw therefrom on certain unfulfilled conditions (In re Wilson et al. [D. C.], 101 Fed. Rep. 571). When a State statute provides for the exemption of the tools and implements of a mechanic or artisan, it is the duty of the trustee to set them aside (in re Peterson [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 430; s. c. 95 Fed. Rep 417).

An endowment insurance policy held by the bankrupt and payable to himself is not exempt (In re Lange [D. C.], 1 N. B. News, 60; s. c. 91 Fed. Rep 361).

Contests as to exemptions will not be heard by the court until a trustee is appointed; exceptions to the trustee's action may then be heard by the referee and certified to the court (In re Smith [D. C., Tex.], 93 Fed. Rep. 791).

So far as the question has thus far arisen, the District Courts are divided as to whether the court of bankruptcy has jurisdiction to enforce liens on the bankrupt's exemptions, it being held that where a creditor held the bankrupt's note containing a waiver of the exemption, such court had jurisdiction to enforce it (In re Schiller [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 400), though if the exempt property be set apart, the bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction either to defend it from adverse claims or enforce liens upon it (In re Grimes [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 529; in re Hatch [D. C.], 102 Fed Rep 280).

Lands allotted to an Indian, in Indian Reservation, being exempt under the Federal law, are exempt under the bankruptcy law and will not vest in his trustee on an adjudication in bankruptcy (In re Russie [D. C ], 96 Fed. Rep. 609).

If the exemption under the State law consists of a stock of goods not divisible without loss, nor salable except as a whole, the court cannot order the trustee to

SEC. 7. Duties of Bankrupts.—a The bankrupt shall (1) attend the first meeting of his creditors, if directed by the court or a judge thereof to do so, and the hearing upon his application for a discharge, if filed; (2) comply with all lawful orders of the court; (3) examine the correctness of all proofs of claims filed against his estate; (4) execute and deliver such papers as shall be ordered by the court; (5) execute to his trustee transfers of all his property in foreign countries; (6) immediately inform his trustee of any attempt, by his creditors or other persons, to evade the provisions of this act, coming to his knowledge; (7) in case of any person having to his knowledge proved a false claim against his estate, disclose that fact immediately to his trustee :2 (8) prepare, make oath to and file in court within ten days, unless further time is granted, after the adjudication, if an involuntary bankrupt,3 and with the petition if a voluntary bankrupt, a schedule of his property, showing the amount and kind of property, the location thereof, its money value in detail, and a list of his creditors, showing their residences, if known, if unknown that fact to be stated, the amounts due each of them, the consideration thereof, the security held by them, if any, and a claim for such exemptions as he may be entitled to, all in triplicate, one copy of each for the clerk, one for the

sell the whole and pay the bankrupt the value of the exemption (In re Grimes [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 529).

1The court may lawfully order a bankrupt to turn over to his trustee all property which he has in his possession or under his control belonging to his estate, and for disobeying such order, punish him for contempt, imprisonment for such disobedience not being an imprisonment for debt within the meaning of State laws (In re Deuell [D. C.]. 100 Fed. Rep. 633; in re Tudor [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 796; in re Rosser [C. C AJ, 101 Fed. Rep. 562; Ripon Knitting Works et al. v. Schreiber [D. C.], 101 Fed. Rep. 810; in re Schlesinger [C. C. A.], 102 Fed. Rep. 117).

"If no trustee be appointed so that the bankrupt may inform him of the false claim, it is his duty to object to its allowance (In re Ankeny [D. C.], 100 Fed. Rep. 614).

"If the bankrupt is absent or cannot be found, the petitioner in involuntary proceedings must file the schedule within five days after adjudication (Rule IX). Estates of remainder should be included in it as well as other assets (In re Schenberger [D. C.], 102 Fed. Rep. 978). The schedule should also include all colorable transfers (In re Hoffman [D. C.], 102 Fed. Rep. 997).

referee, and one for the trustee;' and (9) when present at the first meeting of his creditors, and at such other times as the court shall order, submit to an examination concerning the conducting of his business, cause of his bankruptcy, his dealings with his creditors and other persons, the amount, kind and whereabouts of his property, and, in addition, all matters which may affect the administration and settlement of his estate; but no testimony given by him shall be offered in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding.

1 Debts due to a firm should be scheduled in the firm name, not in the names of the individuals comprising it (Anon 1 B. R. 123).

If any of the claims set out in the schedule are legally questionable, or affected by the statute of limitations, special attention should be drawn to these facts (In re Kingsley, 1 B. R. 329; in re Perry, 1 B. R. 220; in re Ray, 1 B. R. 203; S c. 2 Ben. 253; in re Wright, 6 Biss. 317; in re Harden, 1 B. R. 395). If the bankrupt has an interest in any copartnership, that interest should be stated, but not the specific articles belonging to the firm (In re Norcross, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 100; in re Beal, 2 B. R. 587; s. c. 1 Lowell, 323) The schedule should be an itemized statement of all the property of whatever name or character in which the bankrupt has any right, title or interest in law or equity (In re Hirsch [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep 468; in re Laughlin [D. C.], 96 Fed. Rep. 589; in re Pierce & Holbrook, 3 B. R. 258; Ashley v. Robinson, 29 Ala., 112; in re O'Bannon, 2 B. R. 15; in re Hussman, 2 B. R. 437), though others may claim title adversely (In re Beal, 2 B. R. 587; s c. I Lowell, 323). This embraces all assignable rights of action, whether the damages are liquidated or unliquidated (In re Orne, 1 Ben 361; s. c. 1 B. R. 57), but not such as abate on death (Crockett v. Jewett, 2 Ben. 514; S. c. 2 B. R. 208) including judgment debts appearing of record and unsatisfied (Sellers v. Bell [C. C A.], 94 Fed. Rep. 801). It is the duty of referees to see that defective schedules are amended (839[2]); and if the bankrupt discovers errors, he should amend the schedule at once, which it seems he may do ex parte, without notice to the creditors and upon a pro forma order (In re Watts, 2 B R. 447; s. c. 3 Ben. 166), at any time before his discharge (In re Heller, 5 B. R. 46; in re Connell, 3 B. R. 443; in re Preston, 3 B. R. 103). The better practice, however, would be to apply for leave to amend (Rule XI). Omissions will not affect the rights of creditors who have no notice of the proceedings (17[3]), and wilfully incorrect schedules may subject the bankrupt to imprisonment (29 6) and bar him from a discharge (14 6).

As to false oaths touching schedules, see 14 relative to discharges and 29 b touching offenses, together with notes to these sections.

2 The examination is similar to that of a judgment debtor in supplementary proceedings (In re Pioneer Paper Co., 7 B. R. 250; in re Stuyvesant Bank, 7. B. R. 445), and any actual creditor is entitled to an order for it, though he has not proved his claim (Camp v. Zellars [C. C. A.], 94 Fed. Rep. 799; In re Jehu [D. C.], 94 Fed. Rep 638). It may be ordered by the court of its own motion (In re Belden & Hooker, 4 Ben. 225; in re Patterson, 1 Ben. 448; s c. 1 B. R. 100; in re Macintire, 1 B. R. 11; in re Pioneer Paper Co., 7 B. R. 250; in re Lanier, 2 B. R. 154), or on an oral or written application by the trustee or a creditor, upon a showing that it would inure to the benefit of the estate or establish objections to a discharge (In re Mellen [D. C ], 97 Fed. Rep. 326; in re Lanier, supra; in re Adams, 2 Ben. 503;

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »