Lamkin v. Heyer
Supreme Court of Alabama
ERROR to tho Probate Court of Lowndes. 1. “ By the 3rd section of the bankrupt act of 1841, not only tho property in possession, but actions ponding, and mere rights of action, of every one who is regularly declared a bankrupt, vest, eo instanti, in tho assignee appointed for that purpose.55— (Butler and Wife v. Insurance Company, 8 Ala. 146 ; Reavis y.
Read the full summary
ERROR to tho Probate Court of Lowndes. 1. “ By the 3rd section of the bankrupt act of 1841, not only tho property in possession, but actions ponding, and mere rights of action, of every one who is regularly declared a bankrupt, vest, eo instanti, in tho assignee appointed for that purpose.55— (Butler and Wife v. Insurance Company, 8 Ala. 146 ; Reavis y. Garner, et al. 12 Ala, 661.) 2. Therefore, one who has been regularly declared a bankrupt, cannot institute and maintain a suit in his own name, on a causo of action due him at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy, And even if a suit be…
1Opinion of the Court
DÁR.GAN, C. J.
‘The question presented for our revision arises in this manner : In August, 1847, a decree was rendered against John B. Lamkin, as administrator of George Clark, in favor of E. P. & H. Heyer, for sis hundred and five dollars 62-100, as their distributive share and portion of said Clark’s estate. Execution was issued shortly thereafter against Lamkin, Which was returned no property, and afterwards an execution was issued against Lamkin and his securities on his official bond. A motion was made by the defendants in this execution to quash it, and also to annul the decree, on the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Williamson v. HowellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
- Slatter v. GloverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
3Cited by5 opinions
- Banks v. SpeersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Watts v. GayleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Ragland v. Calhoun's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- Steele v. GravesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Holley v. AcreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853