Hobbs v. Franklin Jewelry Co.

Fifth Circuit

Hobbs v. Franklin Jewelry Co.

131 F.2d 432, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2839

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 31, 1942

DocketNo. 10261

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 F.2d 432 (Hobbs v. Franklin Jewelry Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hobbs v. Franklin Jewelry Co., 131 F.2d 432, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2839 (5th Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Brought by the bankrupt to enjoin the enforcement of a State Court judgment in trover obtained after his discharge in bankruptcy, the claim of the suit was that the liability fell with the discharge and the judgment was unenforceable.

The defenses were: (1) that the case of conversion made out in the State Court was not a mere negligent or technical one and therefore dischargeable under Davis v. ¿Etna Acceptance Company, 293 U.S. 328, 55 S.Ct. 151, 79 L.Ed. 393, but a malicious and wilful one and not dischargeable; and (2) that whether so or not the defense of discharge had been made by, and finally adjudicated against plaintiff in the State Court¹ and was no longer available to him.

The District Judge querying but not deciding whether the pleadings and evidence in the State Court suit had made out a case of debt for a conversion dischargeable under Davis v. ¿Etna Acceptance Company, supra, determined that the question whether they did or not had been submitted by plaintiff to, and had been finally decided against him by, a court of competent jurisdiction and he could not further raise it. He was right in so deciding. The Davis case was not, as this one is, a collateral attack upon a final judgment of a State Court. Had appellant in this case, as Davis did in that one, applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for and obtained a writ of certiorari to the George Court the question would have been fully open to him. Having failed to so apply and thereby permitted the Georgia judgment to become final he is precluded from now attacking it in this proceeding.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Brought by the bankrupt to enjoin the enforcement of a State Court judgment in trover obtained after his discharge in bankruptcy, the claim of the suit was that the liability fell with the discharge and the judgment was unenforceable.

The defenses were: (1) that the case of conversion made out in the State Court was not a mere negligent or technical one and therefore dischargeable under Davis v. ¿Etna Acceptance Company, 293 U.S. 328, 55 S.Ct. 151, 79 L.Ed. 393, but a malicious and wilful one and not dischargeable; and (2) that whether so or not the defense of discharge had been made by, and finally adjudicated against plaintiff in the State Court¹ and was no longer available to him.

The District Judge querying but not deciding whether the pleadings and evidence in the State Court suit had made out a case of debt for a conversion dischargeable under Davis v. ¿Etna Acceptance Company, supra, determined that the question whether they did or not had been submitted by plaintiff to, and had been finally decided against him by, a court of competent jurisdiction and he could not further raise it. He was right in so deciding. The Davis case was not, as this one is, a collateral attack upon a final judgment of a State Court. Had appellant in this case, as Davis did in that one, applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for and obtained a writ of certiorari to the George Court the question would have been fully open to him. Having failed to so apply and thereby permitted the Georgia judgment to become final he is precluded from now attacking it in this proceeding.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F.2d 432, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-v-franklin-jewelry-co-ca5-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack