Legal Opinion

Oilfields Syndicate v. American Improvement Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 27, 1919No. 3339PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California; Oscar A. Trip-pet, Judge. Suit by the Oilfields Syndicate against the American Improvement Company. From a decree for defendant (256 Fed. 979), plaintiff appeals. Oilfields Syndicate appeals from a decree dismissing a complaint on the ground that the facts failed to state a valid cause of action in equity against the Improvement Company, appellee.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California; Oscar A. Trip-pet, Judge. Suit by the Oilfields Syndicate against the American Improvement Company. From a decree for defendant (256 Fed. 979), plaintiff appeals. Oilfields Syndicate appeals from a decree dismissing a complaint on the ground that the facts failed to state a valid cause of action in equity against the Improvement Company, appellee. The suit is to remove a cloud upon the title to certain real estate in California and is founded upon tliese allegations: That on…

1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Pertinent references to the statutes are as follows:

Under section 14c of the Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 550 [Comp. St. § 9598]):

“Confirmation of a composition shall discharge the bankrupt from his debts, other than those agreed to be paid by the terms of the composition and those not affected by a discharge.”

Section 70f (Comp. St. § 9654) of the same act provides:

“Upon the confirmation of a composition offered by a bankrupt, the title to his property shall thereupon revest in him.”

In Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co. v. De Witt, 237 U.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Metcalf v. BarkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Co. v. De Witt & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. StaakeSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  4. Wilmot v. MudgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  5. In re GoldsmithDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1902

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Price v. Spokane Silver & Lead Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
  2. Dodd v. San Joaquin Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
  3. In Re Fay Stocking Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1938
  4. Brown Et Ux. v. Cleverly Et Ux.Utah Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Casavant v. BorekaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API