Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

109 F. 789

Docket No. 843.

In re Haskin

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court · decided 1901-06-17

<p>Bankruptcy1 — Exemptions—Law op Pennsylvania.</p> <p>Under the law of Pennsylvania, a debtor must select his exemption of $300 from the property owned by him, and a bankrupt in that state cannot, by agreement with his trustee, omit such selection, and claim the amount of his exemption from the proceeds of the property after its sale.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on In re Richard · Hammer v. Freese · In re Brown

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-06-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1928

1 federal appellate · 9 district ·

50190119101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bankruptcy1 — Exemptions—Law op Pennsylvania.

¶2Under the law of Pennsylvania, a debtor must select his exemption of $300 from the property owned by him, and a bankrupt in that state cannot, by agreement with his trustee, omit such selection, and claim the amount of his exemption from the proceeds of the property after its sale.

¶3In Bankruptcy. On certificate from referee.

¶4Henry N. Wessel, for trustee.

¶5Sami. M. Israeli, for bankrupt.

¶6J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

¶7The law of Pennsylvania does not permit a debtor to claim 1ns exemption out of the money produced by a sale of his personal property. He may claim, cash or securities, if these form part of the assigned estate; and similarly, if chattels form part of the estate, his statutory right is to the property itself, and not to the fund that may be produced by its sale: Hammer v. Freese, 19 Pa. 255. When, therefore, the bankrupt and *790the trustee agreed that the bankrupt should retain household goods to the amount of $127.25, and that the balance of the $300 should be paid “in cash, as realized by the trustee in bankruptcy upon a sale of the effects of the said bankrupt,” they were making an agreement which as to the balance is unlawful, and cannot be enforced. In the case of In re Richard (D. C.) 94 Fed. 633, and In re Brown, 4 Am. Bankr. R. 46, 100 Fed. 441, it appears that the bankrupt’s exemption had actually been set aside, and that after this had been done he permitted the trustee to sell the exempt property at the same time when other property was sold. This, of course, might be properly done, for the exempt property was the bankrupt’s own, and he might do with it what he pleased. But in Pennsylvania, until the property is actually set apart, he gets no title, and certainly no agreement with his trustee can take the place of the statutory requirements. The point is decided in Re Woodard, 2 Am. Bankr. R. 692, 95 Fed. 954. The order made by the referee is approved.

/109/f1d/789 · .json · Public domain