Legal Opinion

Clements v. Eggleston

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 18, 1927No. 6 Div. 935PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

The trustee did not have to obtain the consent of the bankrupt court to file the present bill in the state court. Cartright. v. West, 155 Ala. 619, 47 So. 93. The statute and authorities referred to by counsel for the appellant relate to suits begun by the bankrupt and the right of the trustee to prosecute them .to a finish, and not to suits originally commenced by the trustee as in the present instance.

Of course, fraud cannot be properly charged by way of conclusion merely, but we think the present bill sets up sufficient facts to meet the requirements of the rule. Moody v. Moody (Ala. Sup.)…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Booth v. BatesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  2. Cartright v. WestSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
  3. Moody v. MoodySupreme Court of Alabama · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. KabayamaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
  2. State v. KabayamaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
  3. City of Prichard v. MoultonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964
  4. Progress Press Brick & MacHine Co. v. SpragueMissouri Court of Appeals · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API