In re Hall

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa

In re Hall

11 F. Cas. 199, 1 Dill. 587

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa

DecidedJuly 1, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. Cas. 199 (In re Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hall, 11 F. Cas. 199, 1 Dill. 587 (circtdia 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

DILLON, Circuit Judge.

1. An appeal to the circuit court does not lie by the petitioning creditor from an order of the district court vacating, at the instance of another creditor, an order made at a previous term, adjudicating their debtor a bankrupt; the remedy of the petitioning a-editor in such a case is under the second section of the bankrupt act [of 1867 (14 Stat. 518)], and not by an appeal under the eighth section. Ruddick v. Billings [Case No. 12,110]; Ex parte Alexander [Id. 160]; Langley v. Perry [Id. 8,067]; Hawkins v. Bank [Id. 6,245].

2. A creditor whose claim is not evidenced by commercial paper, but rests in an open account, may file a petition against his debtor, under section 39 of the act, and charge, as an act of bankruptcy, that he has suspended and failed to resume payment of the commercial paper for the prescribed period.

3. It is not necessary, in order to constitute an act of bankruptcy, that the suspension and failure to resume payment of commercial paper for fourteen days should be fraudulent. In re Burt [Id. 2,210].

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

DILLON, Circuit Judge.

1. An appeal to the circuit court does not lie by the petitioning creditor from an order of the district court vacating, at the instance of another creditor, an order made at a previous term, adjudicating their debtor a bankrupt; the remedy of the petitioning a-editor in such a case is under the second section of the bankrupt act [of 1867 (14 Stat. 518)], and not by an appeal under the eighth section. Ruddick v. Billings [Case No. 12,110]; Ex parte Alexander [Id. 160]; Langley v. Perry [Id. 8,067]; Hawkins v. Bank [Id. 6,245].

2. A creditor whose claim is not evidenced by commercial paper, but rests in an open account, may file a petition against his debtor, under section 39 of the act, and charge, as an act of bankruptcy, that he has suspended and failed to resume payment of the commercial paper for the prescribed period.

3. It is not necessary, in order to constitute an act of bankruptcy, that the suspension and failure to resume payment of commercial paper for fourteen days should be fraudulent. In re Burt [Id. 2,210].

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. Cas. 199, 1 Dill. 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hall-circtdia-1871.