Priestly v. Hilliard & Tabor
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Petition for Revision of a Certain Order of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. In the matter of bankruptcy proceedings of the Argonaut Shoe Company. A claim, having been allowed, and a dividend declared thereon, was assigned to the- petitioner, W. E. Priestly, when the dividend was sought to be seized by garnishment proceedings in the state court at the instance of Hilliard & Tabor and the Williams Marvin Company.
Read the full summary
Petition for Revision of a Certain Order of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. In the matter of bankruptcy proceedings of the Argonaut Shoe Company. A claim, having been allowed, and a dividend declared thereon, was assigned to the- petitioner, W. E. Priestly, when the dividend was sought to be seized by garnishment proceedings in the state court at the instance of Hilliard & Tabor and the Williams Marvin Company. From a- decree directing the referee to ascertain which was prior in time, the assignment to the petitioner or the garnishment,, the…
1Opinion of the Court
GILBERT, Circuit Judge.
[1] The question here presented upon a petition for revision is whether funds in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of a creditor of the bankrupt’s- estate may be reached by garnishment proceedings after a dividend has been declared. The'’ petition alleges that a claimant against the bankrupt’s, estate proved her claim for the sum of $9,170.81; that thereafter, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, she assigned her claim to-the petitioner: that a dividend was declared upon the claims against the bankrupt; that the proportion due the claimant…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Buchanan v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- Dunsmoor v. FurstenfeldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- In re Estate NeracCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Cowart v. Caldwell Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Williams v. KennedySupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Nixon v. MichaelsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
- BANKERS'MORTG. CO. OF TOPEKA, KAN. v. McCombCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- Searle v. Mechanics' Loan & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Glass v. WoodmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- In Re Railroad Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1935
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.