In Re Plumer
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
As to the first objection, the bankrupt was and is without any doubt a farmer within the intent of section 75 (s), Bankruptcy Act, as amended (Frazier-Lemke Act), 11 USCA § 203 (s). He lived on the 153-acre farm at issue from the time of purchase in 1930, and steadily, with his family, after April, 1933. His bona fide engagement was farming. He cared for from twelve to seventeen acres of fruit orchards; cultivated and pruned the orchard, harvested the crop on the land when he bought it at a loss, however, of $500, and marketed all the crop then and since,…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- United States v. CruikshankSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. RadfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Westchester Fire Ins. v. Buffalo Housewrecking & Salvage Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1941
- In re DotyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1935
- In re ParmerDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1936