Herndon v. Howard

76 U.S. 664, 19 L. Ed. 809, 9 Wall. 664, 1869 U.S. LEXIS 1016
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 30, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 76 U.S. 664 (Herndon v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herndon v. Howard, 76 U.S. 664, 19 L. Ed. 809, 9 Wall. 664, 1869 U.S. LEXIS 1016 (1870).

Opinion

76 U.S. 664

19 L.Ed. 809

9 Wall. 664

HERNDON
v.
HOWARD.

December Term, 1869

IN this case Herndon had taken an appeal from the Circuit Court for the Western District of Texas; and after doing so had become bankrupt. His assignee in bankruptcy—one Masterson—now moved to be admitted as a party appellant in the cause with the original appellant, Herndon.

His motion was supported by the production of the deed of assignment of the register in bankruptcy of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas, in the matter of his bankruptcy to Masterson, duly attested by the clerk of the court. The motion was founded upon the fourteenth section of the Bankrupt Law, which provides that the assignee in bankruptcy may prosecute and defend in his own name all suits at law and in equity pending at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy, in which the bankrupt is a party, in the same manner and with the like effect as they might have been prosecuted or defendant by the bankrupt, and which makes a copy of the register's assignment, duly certified by the clerk of the proper court, conclusive evidence of the right of the assignee to use.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

The section of the Bankrupt Law relied on, we think, governs the present case. It seems to require that Masterson, the assignee, be substituted as appellant for Herndon, the bankrupt, who may be said to be civiliter mortuus, precisely as an executor or administrator would be made party instead of an appellant actually deceased; and an order will be

MADE ACCORDINGLY.

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

Related

Kagey v. Fox West Coast Theatres Corp.
31 P.2d 67 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1934)
Bankers' Mortg. Bond Co. v. Rosenthal
145 So. 456 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Carroll v. Hannon
136 A. 212 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Gregg Grain Co. v. Walker Grain Co.
285 F. 156 (Fifth Circuit, 1922)
In re Henry Wood Sons Co.
279 F. 608 (D. Massachusetts, 1922)
Whyel v. Jane Lew Coal & Coke Co.
69 S.E. 192 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1910)
Fitzgerald v. Neustadt
27 P. 936 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Jenkins
103 Ill. 588 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1882)
Thatcher v. Rockwell
105 U.S. 467 (Supreme Court, 1882)
Donegan v. Davis
66 Ala. 362 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)
Mayhew v. Pentecost
129 Mass. 332 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Esterbrook Steel Pen Manufacturing Co. v. Ahern
30 N.J. Eq. 341 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1879)
Eyster v. Gafe
2 Colo. 225 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1873)
Eyster v. Gaff
2 Colo. 228 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 U.S. 664, 19 L. Ed. 809, 9 Wall. 664, 1869 U.S. LEXIS 1016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herndon-v-howard-scotus-1870.