In re Long

116 F. 113, 1902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided June 6, 1902·No. No. 1,166·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The report of the learned referee contains a satisfactory discussion of the question submitted, and I need only add that I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. A collection of cases upon this subject will be found in Coll. Bankr. (3d Ed.) p. 85. I think, also, that the referee’s order finds further support in the analogy afforded by the rule referred to in Re Haskin (D. C.) 109 Fed. 789, and Re Manning (D. C.) 112 Fed. 948, namely, that a debtor may not claim his exemption, or any part of it, out of the proceeds of a future sale of his personal property.

The order of the referee is affirmed.

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

In re Long, 116 F. 113, 1902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143 (E.D. Pa. 1902).

116 F. 113 (In re Long) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Rogers
45 F. Supp. 297 (E.D. New York, 1942)
Gross v. Shurte
39 F.2d 100 (E.D. Illinois, 1930)
Brandt v. Mathew
218 F. 422 (Ninth Circuit, 1914)
In re Wishnefsky
181 F. 896 (D. New Jersey, 1910)
In re Soper
173 F. 116 (D. Nebraska, 1909)
In re Coddington
126 F. 891 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1904)