In re Duffy
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
In Bankruptcy. Exceptions to report of referee.
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBALD, District Judge.
The referee was clearly right in holding that the particular property which the bankrupt desired to retain under his state exemption must be set out in his schedules. It was not sufficient to simply claim that property to that extent be set off to him. The exact property which he elected to take should have been specified. This is what is required by the state law (Hammer v. Freese, 19 Pa. 255), and the bankrupt law is governed by it. Besides that, the schedules prescribed by the supreme court call for a particular description of the property claimed, which of itself…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Githens v. ShifflerDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1902
- Hammer v. FreeseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Miller v. ImhoffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Ferris v. IronsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- In re YostDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Freedman Bros. v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1911
- In re Prince & WalterDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1904
- Burke v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1905
- In re Andrews & SimondsDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1911
- In re WunderDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1905
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.