In re Sallee

D. Kentucky

In re Sallee

21 F. Cas. 241, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 228

DecidedJuly 1, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 21 F. Cas. 241 (In re Sallee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Sallee, 21 F. Cas. 241, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 228 (kyd 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

In this case the register, John W. Tuttle, certifies for decision by the court the question “whether a judgment should be set forth on Schedule B, No. 2 or 3.” The register expresses the opinion that B, No. 2, letter b, is the proper place, and as the attorney for the bankrupt insisted otherwise, at his request the question is certified for decision.

It .does not clearly appear, from the certificate, whether the “judgment” referred to is .in favor of the bankrupt or against him; but assuming that it is in his favor, I am of the opinion that the register is clearly right

Judgments are in one sense “ehoses in action,” but in the sense of the Schedule B, No. 2, they are “personal property,” and are not “unliquidated claims,” within the meaning of Schedule B, No. 3, letter d.

Judgments, therefore, in favor of the bankrupt, should be set forth in Schedule B, No. 2, under letter b. It would also, I think, not be improper to set them forth in that schedule under letter m. The bankrupt, in preparing Schedule B, No. 2, is not restricted to the letters therein printed. He may ex[242]*242haust the alphabet, if he chooses, and then use other marks, if he can thereby describe his “personal property” accurately or lucidly.

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

In this case the register, John W. Tuttle, certifies for decision by the court the question “whether a judgment should be set forth on Schedule B, No. 2 or 3.” The register expresses the opinion that B, No. 2, letter b, is the proper place, and as the attorney for the bankrupt insisted otherwise, at his request the question is certified for decision.

It .does not clearly appear, from the certificate, whether the “judgment” referred to is .in favor of the bankrupt or against him; but assuming that it is in his favor, I am of the opinion that the register is clearly right

Judgments are in one sense “ehoses in action,” but in the sense of the Schedule B, No. 2, they are “personal property,” and are not “unliquidated claims,” within the meaning of Schedule B, No. 3, letter d.

Judgments, therefore, in favor of the bankrupt, should be set forth in Schedule B, No. 2, under letter b. It would also, I think, not be improper to set them forth in that schedule under letter m. The bankrupt, in preparing Schedule B, No. 2, is not restricted to the letters therein printed. He may ex[242]*242haust the alphabet, if he chooses, and then use other marks, if he can thereby describe his “personal property” accurately or lucidly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F. Cas. 241, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sallee-kyd-1868.