In re Fly

S.D. California

In re Fly

110 F. 141, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California

DecidedApril 29, 1901

DocketNo. 1,458

StatusPublished

This text of 110 F. 141 (In re Fly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.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 Fly, 110 F. 141, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121 (S.D. Cal. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLBORN, District Judge.

The evidence is undisputed that up to June of last year the bankrupt was actively engaged in farming. Although the bankrupt has since engaged in another pursuit, yet I think the inference a fair one that this latter occupation is but temporary, and does not mean permanent abandonment of his former occupation. It has been held, under the Iowa statute, that a debtor could claim his exemption as a farmer, though he had temporarily stopped farming and was living in town, and had sought other employment there, and had offered to sell some of his farming implements, if he intended to resume farming. Pease v. Price, 101 Iowa, 57, 69 N. W. 1120; 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 104, note 1. See, also, Caswell v. Keith, 12 Gray, 351; Freem. Ex’ns, § 226. The referee’s decision, so far as it relates to the articles above enumerated, is reversed, and said articles will be set aside to the bankrupt as exempt.

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

WELLBORN, District Judge.

The evidence is undisputed that up to June of last year the bankrupt was actively engaged in farming. Although the bankrupt has since engaged in another pursuit, yet I think the inference a fair one that this latter occupation is but temporary, and does not mean permanent abandonment of his former occupation. It has been held, under the Iowa statute, that a debtor could claim his exemption as a farmer, though he had temporarily stopped farming and was living in town, and had sought other employment there, and had offered to sell some of his farming implements, if he intended to resume farming. Pease v. Price, 101 Iowa, 57, 69 N. W. 1120; 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 104, note 1. See, also, Caswell v. Keith, 12 Gray, 351; Freem. Ex’ns, § 226. The referee’s decision, so far as it relates to the articles above enumerated, is reversed, and said articles will be set aside to the bankrupt as exempt.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 F. 141, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fly-casd-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack