Legal Opinion

Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 25, 1915No. 5662Published

Exceptions to auditor’s report; from city court of Monroe— Judge Stone. July 23, 1913.

1Opinion

ON MOTION ROE REHEARING.

Wade, J.

It is insisted in the motion for a rehearing that the ruling made by this court, that the defense of usury is as fully available to the debtor’s trustee as to the debtor himself, is virtually in conflict with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court in Frank v. Vollkommer, 205 U. S. 521, 526 (27 Sup. Ct. 596, 51 L. ed. 911), and in Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 178 U. S. 524 (20 Sup. Ct. 1000, 44 L. ed. 1175, 1181). The bankruptcy act itself originally provided, in section 23&, that “Suits by the trustee shall only be brought or prosecuted in the courts where…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bardes v. Hawarden BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Frank v. VollkommerSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  3. In re WorthDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1904
  4. Cohen v. MeadorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  5. Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. RiversCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API