In re Monroe

114 F. 398, 1902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 310
CourtDistrict Court, D. Washington
DecidedApril 7, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 F. 398 (In re Monroe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, 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 Monroe, 114 F. 398, 1902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 310 (washd 1902).

Opinion

HANFORD, District Judge.

One of the fundamental principles in the jurisprudence of this country is that no man can be deprived of any legal right by a judicial proceeding to which he is not a party, and of which he has not received lawful notice or had actual knowledge. Upon this principle, I hold that the bankrupt in this case has not ob-' tained a discharge from any debt which was omitted from the schedule annexed 1o his petition which may be due to a creditor who did not have notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings in time to have proved his claim. Creditors who have not been notified of the proceedings in the manner prescribed by the bankruptcy law are not estopped from asserting their rights by reason of mere failure on their part to be diligent in discovering the insolvency of their debtors or their resort to a court of bankruptcy. As the petitioning creditor has not lost any rights by the order of the court discharging the bankrupt from his liabilities, this proceeding to vacate that order is unnecessary.

Demurrer to petition sustained.

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

Related

Bank of Wrightsville v. Four Seasons
94 S.E. 649 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Kreitlein v. Ferger
97 N.E. 819 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 F. 398, 1902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-monroe-washd-1902.