In re Boothe

E.D. Washington

In re Boothe

38 F. Supp. 10, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3382

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington

DecidedApril 11, 1941

DocketNo. B—8072

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F. Supp. 10 (In re Boothe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Boothe, 38 F. Supp. 10, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3382 (E.D. Wash. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWELLENBACH, District Judge.

Petitioner’s prayer that the Court enter an order sustaining the petition of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation and dismissing the petition of the Farm Debtors must be granted. Testimony shows that during the year 1940 the debtors had an income of seven hundred and fifty ($750) dollars. They received of that only two hundred and fifty ($250) dollars from the sale of chickens raised upon the property in question. The property formerly was a fruit orchard. However, the trees were pulled and during the last two years no orchard income was forthcoming. At least two-thirds of the debtor’s income was derived from driving a bus or working as a carpenter. Under the provisions of the Statute he cannot be construed to be a farmer.

See In re Peterson, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 86; In re Palma Brothers, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 920; In re Fullagar, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 602; In re McMurray, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 449; In re Weis, D.C., 10 F.Supp. 227.

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

SCHWELLENBACH, District Judge.

Petitioner’s prayer that the Court enter an order sustaining the petition of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation and dismissing the petition of the Farm Debtors must be granted. Testimony shows that during the year 1940 the debtors had an income of seven hundred and fifty ($750) dollars. They received of that only two hundred and fifty ($250) dollars from the sale of chickens raised upon the property in question. The property formerly was a fruit orchard. However, the trees were pulled and during the last two years no orchard income was forthcoming. At least two-thirds of the debtor’s income was derived from driving a bus or working as a carpenter. Under the provisions of the Statute he cannot be construed to be a farmer.

See In re Peterson, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 86; In re Palma Brothers, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 920; In re Fullagar, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 602; In re McMurray, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 449; In re Weis, D.C., 10 F.Supp. 227.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. Supp. 10, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-boothe-waed-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack