Bank of Wrightsville v. Four Seasons

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bank of Wrightsville v. Four Seasons

94 S.E. 649, 21 Ga. App. 453, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 634

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1917

Docket8711

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 649 (Bank of Wrightsville v. Four Seasons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of Wrightsville v. Four Seasons, 94 S.E. 649, 21 Ga. App. 453, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 634 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

Under the provisions of the bankruptcy act of 1867 (14 Stat. 517), a debt provable in bankruptcy was discharged, though the name of the creditor was omitted from the schedule, if the omission was not wilful nor fraudulent, even though the creditor had no notice or knowledge of the proceedings. Broadway Trust Co. v. Manheim, 14 Am. Bkr. R. 122 (47 Misc. 415, 95 N. Y. Supp. 93); Tyrrel v. Hammerstein, 6 Am. Bk. R. 430 (33 Misc. 505, 67 N. Y. Supp. 717). But under the provisions of the present national bankruptcy act of 1898 (30 Stat. 544), a discharge in bankruptcy releases a bankrupt from all his provable debts except those specifically mentioned by section 17 of the act, which includes' those that have not been duly scheduled in time for proof and allowance, with the name of the creditor if known to the bankrupt, unless such creditor had notice or knowledge of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Collier..on Bankruptcy (10th ed.), 400 (c); Remington, on Bankruptcy, §§ 2777-2780; Hayer v. Comstock, 7 Am. Bkr. R. 493 (115 Iowa, 187, 88 N. W. 351); In re Monroe, 114 Fed. 398 (7 Am. Bkr. R. 706); Zimmerman v. Ketchum, 11 Am. Bkr. R. 190 (66 Kan. 98, 71 Pac. 264); Broadway Trust Co. v. Manheim, supra; Custard v. Wigderson, 17 Am. Bkr. R. 337 (130 Wis. 412, 110 N. W. 263, 10 Ann. Cas. 740); Finnell v. Armoura, 26 Am. Bkr. R. 802 (39 Utah, 316, 117 Pac. 49); Marshall v. English-American Loan Co., 127 Ga. 376 (56 S. E. 449). It being admitted in the court below that the cashier of the plaintiff bank had actual knowledge of such bankruptcy proceedings, and had accepted such notice as true, and generally discussed the fact with others in ample time to have proved his debt against the bankrupt, the direction of a verdict in favor of the defendants was not erroneous;

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jenkins, J.

Under the provisions of the bankruptcy act of 1867 (14 Stat. 517), a debt provable in bankruptcy was discharged, though the name of the creditor was omitted from the schedule, if the omission was not wilful nor fraudulent, even though the creditor had no notice or knowledge of the proceedings. Broadway Trust Co. v. Manheim, 14 Am. Bkr. R. 122 (47 Misc. 415, 95 N. Y. Supp. 93); Tyrrel v. Hammerstein, 6 Am. Bk. R. 430 (33 Misc. 505, 67 N. Y. Supp. 717). But under the provisions of the present national bankruptcy act of 1898 (30 Stat. 544), a discharge in bankruptcy releases a bankrupt from all his provable debts except those specifically mentioned by section 17 of the act, which includes' those that have not been duly scheduled in time for proof and allowance, with the name of the creditor if known to the bankrupt, unless such creditor had notice or knowledge of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Collier..on Bankruptcy (10th ed.), 400 (c); Remington, on Bankruptcy, §§ 2777-2780; Hayer v. Comstock, 7 Am. Bkr. R. 493 (115 Iowa, 187, 88 N. W. 351); In re Monroe, 114 Fed. 398 (7 Am. Bkr. R. 706); Zimmerman v. Ketchum, 11 Am. Bkr. R. 190 (66 Kan. 98, 71 Pac. 264); Broadway Trust Co. v. Manheim, supra; Custard v. Wigderson, 17 Am. Bkr. R. 337 (130 Wis. 412, 110 N. W. 263, 10 Ann. Cas. 740); Finnell v. Armoura, 26 Am. Bkr. R. 802 (39 Utah, 316, 117 Pac. 49); Marshall v. English-American Loan Co., 127 Ga. 376 (56 S. E. 449). It being admitted in the court below that the cashier of the plaintiff bank had actual knowledge of such bankruptcy proceedings, and had accepted such notice as true, and generally discussed the fact with others in ample time to have proved his debt against the bankrupt, the direction of a verdict in favor of the defendants was not erroneous;

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 649, 21 Ga. App. 453, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-wrightsville-v-four-seasons-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack