In re Richards Bros.

Sixth Circuit

In re Richards Bros.

234 F. 1023, 148 C.C.A. 665, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1095

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1914

DocketNo. 2516

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 F. 1023 (In re Richards Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Richards Bros., 234 F. 1023, 148 C.C.A. 665, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1095 (6th Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trustee in bankruptcy complains of the action of the court below in allowing to the bankrupts the trade exemptions provided by the Michigan statute (3 C. L. Mich. 1897, § 10322, subd. 8), against the contention that the name Richards Bros., under which the bankrupts did business, is an assumed or fictitious name, in violation of the statute (P. A. Mich. 1907, No. 101), which forbids the carrying on of business under an assumed or fictitious name, unless a certificate showing the real names of the parties is filed in a designated public office. This contention is effectually foreclosed by a decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, made since these proceedings to revise were taken. Cross v. Leonard, 181 Mich. 24, 147 N. W. 540. The order complained of is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trustee in bankruptcy complains of the action of the court below in allowing to the bankrupts the trade exemptions provided by the Michigan statute (3 C. L. Mich. 1897, § 10322, subd. 8), against the contention that the name Richards Bros., under which the bankrupts did business, is an assumed or fictitious name, in violation of the statute (P. A. Mich. 1907, No. 101), which forbids the carrying on of business under an assumed or fictitious name, unless a certificate showing the real names of the parties is filed in a designated public office. This contention is effectually foreclosed by a decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, made since these proceedings to revise were taken. Cross v. Leonard, 181 Mich. 24, 147 N. W. 540. The order complained of is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F. 1023, 148 C.C.A. 665, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richards-bros-ca6-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack