In re Belden

D. California

In re Belden

3 F. Cas. 82, 15 Pitts L.J. 547

DecidedJuly 1, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 3 F. Cas. 82 (In re Belden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Belden, 3 F. Cas. 82, 15 Pitts L.J. 547 (californiad 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

In this case the bankrupt having applied for a discharge, the creditors’ counsel objected on the ground that Belden had brought himself within the meaning of the twenty-ninth section of the bankrupt act of 1867, [14 Stat. 581,] which forbids the discharge to be granted in cases where the bankrupt has, within four months before the commencement of proceedings, procured his property to be attached, &c. It appeared that the attachment had been made without his knowledge or consent, by a hostile creditor. But it was contended, on the part of the creditors, that Belden came within the meaning of the clause, by having subsequently omitted “to procure himself to be adjudged a voluntary bankrupt.” But THE COURT (HOFFMAN, District Judge) decided that this omission “could have no retrospective intent on the previous taking of the property,” and could not “supply the intent to give a preference, which is an essential ingredient in the act of bankruptcy, and which, when the property was taken, had no existence.”

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

In this case the bankrupt having applied for a discharge, the creditors’ counsel objected on the ground that Belden had brought himself within the meaning of the twenty-ninth section of the bankrupt act of 1867, [14 Stat. 581,] which forbids the discharge to be granted in cases where the bankrupt has, within four months before the commencement of proceedings, procured his property to be attached, &c. It appeared that the attachment had been made without his knowledge or consent, by a hostile creditor. But it was contended, on the part of the creditors, that Belden came within the meaning of the clause, by having subsequently omitted “to procure himself to be adjudged a voluntary bankrupt.” But THE COURT (HOFFMAN, District Judge) decided that this omission “could have no retrospective intent on the previous taking of the property,” and could not “supply the intent to give a preference, which is an essential ingredient in the act of bankruptcy, and which, when the property was taken, had no existence.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F. Cas. 82, 15 Pitts L.J. 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-belden-californiad-1872.