In re Starr

N.D. California

In re Starr

232 F. 416, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1675

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California

DecidedJanuary 29, 1916

DocketNo. 9109

StatusPublished

This text of 232 F. 416 (In re Starr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Starr, 232 F. 416, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1675 (N.D. Cal. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

DOOLING, District Judge.

Judge. The claim of Josephine Starr, wife of the bankrupt, for $2,531.40, supported by the promissory note of the bankrupt, executed in 1911, having been disallowed by the referee, she seeks a review of the order of disallowance. The claim was not disallowed in terms, but was made subordinate to the claims of other creditors, which, owing to the paucity of funds, will result in her receiving no dividend. The claim, evidenced by the note, is for services rendered by the wife in the business of her husband, and its bona fides is not questioned by the referee, nor apparently. by the trustee. The Civil Code of this state (section 158) permits husband and wife to enter into contracts of this kind, and I know no reason why this claim should not stand as any other claim would for like services. There is nothing in the marital relation which would compel a wife to. work in her husband’s store without compensation, nor anything in the record here which would in good faith estop the claimant from presenting her claim.

The order postponing the claim is therefore reversed.

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

DOOLING, District Judge.

Judge. The claim of Josephine Starr, wife of the bankrupt, for $2,531.40, supported by the promissory note of the bankrupt, executed in 1911, having been disallowed by the referee, she seeks a review of the order of disallowance. The claim was not disallowed in terms, but was made subordinate to the claims of other creditors, which, owing to the paucity of funds, will result in her receiving no dividend. The claim, evidenced by the note, is for services rendered by the wife in the business of her husband, and its bona fides is not questioned by the referee, nor apparently. by the trustee. The Civil Code of this state (section 158) permits husband and wife to enter into contracts of this kind, and I know no reason why this claim should not stand as any other claim would for like services. There is nothing in the marital relation which would compel a wife to. work in her husband’s store without compensation, nor anything in the record here which would in good faith estop the claimant from presenting her claim.

The order postponing the claim is therefore reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 F. 416, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-starr-cand-1916.