Legal Opinion

In re Dunkly

District Court, N.D. California

Decided January 8, 1946No. Bk-10762PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELSH, District Judge.

W. J. Erich and Carrie C. Erich, listed as creditors of the above named petitioners, moved to dismiss the above entitled proceeding. The principal ground of their motion is that said petitioners were not farmers within the meaning of Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203, at the time they instituted said proceeding.

Affidavits and other evidence showed that petitioners were engaged in the production of trout for commercial purposes at Lava Springs, Plumas County, California, where they operated a fish hatchery. Petitioners claim that they are entitled to the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union v. City of St. HelensOregon Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Meader v. Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident BoardIdaho Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Inman v. C., M. & St. P. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1883
  4. United States Board & Paper Co. v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Treat v. ParsonsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1892

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re MaikeUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · 1987
  2. Van Clief v. ComptrollerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  3. Sunburst Bank v. Findley (In Re Findley)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1987
  4. In re DunklyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API