In re Shipman

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina

In re Shipman

21 F. Cas. 1314, 2 Hughes 227

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina

DecidedOctober 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 F. Cas. 1314 (In re Shipman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Shipman, 21 F. Cas. 1314, 2 Hughes 227 (circtwdnc 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

BOND, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion on the part of creditors to set aside an application for the allowance of a homestead exemption out of property incumbered by judgments upon debts created antecedent to the adoption of the constitution of North Carolina, which provides for that exemption. It seems to me that this application is similar to that in Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall [82 U. S.] 610, which was made under a like provision in the constitution of Georgia, and which the supreme court declared with some emphasis could not be allowed; and it is precisely the Case of Dillard [Case No. 3,912], decided in the Eastern district of Virginia. The act of congress of March 8, 1873, which was passed, as is maintained at bar, to overrule the decision of Gunn v. Barry [supra], and to make the homestead exemption paramount to the. liens of antecedent judgments, was. by the same court, Chief Justice Waite delivering the opinion, in Deckert’s Case [Case No. 3,728], declared to be unconstitutional. The application on the part of the bankrupt must be refused, and the motion to set aside granted.

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

BOND, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion on the part of creditors to set aside an application for the allowance of a homestead exemption out of property incumbered by judgments upon debts created antecedent to the adoption of the constitution of North Carolina, which provides for that exemption. It seems to me that this application is similar to that in Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall [82 U. S.] 610, which was made under a like provision in the constitution of Georgia, and which the supreme court declared with some emphasis could not be allowed; and it is precisely the Case of Dillard [Case No. 3,912], decided in the Eastern district of Virginia. The act of congress of March 8, 1873, which was passed, as is maintained at bar, to overrule the decision of Gunn v. Barry [supra], and to make the homestead exemption paramount to the. liens of antecedent judgments, was. by the same court, Chief Justice Waite delivering the opinion, in Deckert’s Case [Case No. 3,728], declared to be unconstitutional. The application on the part of the bankrupt must be refused, and the motion to set aside granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F. Cas. 1314, 2 Hughes 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shipman-circtwdnc-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack