Jones v. Marsh

Sixth Circuit

Jones v. Marsh

226 F.2d 622

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 1955

DocketNo. 12564

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 F.2d 622 (Jones v. Marsh) 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

Jones v. Marsh, 226 F.2d 622 (6th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the bankrupt and his mother, who intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings, from an order of the district court relating to a parcel of real estate in Knoxville, Tennessee. The property was conveyed by deed of record to the two appellants in 1938.

The district court, approving the findings and conclusions of the Referee, held that the bankrupt was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the property, and that he was not entitled to a homestead exemption in the property, the Referee having concluded that “no parole partition was or could be made in this cause.” The court accordingly held that the Trustee was entitled to have sold the bankrupt’s undivided one-half interest for the benefit of creditors.

We are of the opinion that the decisions and orders of the Referee and the affirmance thereof by the district court were correct for the reasons stated therein. The order appealed from is accordingly affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the bankrupt and his mother, who intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings, from an order of the district court relating to a parcel of real estate in Knoxville, Tennessee. The property was conveyed by deed of record to the two appellants in 1938.

The district court, approving the findings and conclusions of the Referee, held that the bankrupt was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the property, and that he was not entitled to a homestead exemption in the property, the Referee having concluded that “no parole partition was or could be made in this cause.” The court accordingly held that the Trustee was entitled to have sold the bankrupt’s undivided one-half interest for the benefit of creditors.

We are of the opinion that the decisions and orders of the Referee and the affirmance thereof by the district court were correct for the reasons stated therein. The order appealed from is accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 F.2d 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-marsh-ca6-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack