Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

196 F. 909

Docket No. 3,933.

In re Zack

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court · decided 1912-05-31

<p>In the matter of Samuel R. Zack, bankrupt. On review of order of referee.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1915

1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1912-05-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bankruptcy (§ 396*) — Exemption.

¶2Where a bankrupt made bis claim to specific exemptions under the Pennsylvania statute in due time after receiving notice of the adjudication, which was involuntary, but the property had been sold by a receiver, it was within his right to claim the $300 value allowed by the statute in money as an alternative.

¶3| Ed. Note. — Por other eases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. §§ 659-668; Doc. Dig. § 396.*']

¶4In the matter of Samuel R. Zack, bankrupt. On review of order of referee.

¶5Affirmed.

¶6Harry G. Sundheim, of Philadelphia, Pa., for trustee.

¶7Wessel & Aarons and Edwin Fischer, all of Philadelphia, -Pa., for bankrupt.

¶9J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

¶10An involuntary petition was filed on December 29, 1910. The adjudication was entered January 23d, but the bankrupt had no knowledge of its entry until February 14th, when the referee notified him to file his schedules. These were filed on February 21st, and contained a claim for the exemption of specified property. The bankrupt stated in the claim:

"This property was taken into the possession of the receiver appointed by the United States District Court, and may have been sold. If so, petitioner claims $300 in cash.’'

¶11*910THe referee allowed the $300 in cash, and the trustee asked for a. •review of the order.

¶12The motion to dismiss the petition for review is refused without comment, for on the merits I think the trustee should not prevail. The bankrupt made his claim for exemption, regular in form, within 10 days after he had knowledge of the adjudication. He demanded specific articles; but, as these had already been sold by the receiver when the claim was made, it is well settled that he was within his' right in asking alternatively for $300 in cash.

¶13The referee’s order of April 4, 1912, was therefore correct, and is now affirmed.

/196/f1d/909 · .json · Public domain