Miller v. First Service Corp.

Eighth Circuit

Miller v. First Service Corp.

84 F.2d 684, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4581

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 1936

DocketNo. 10573

StatusPublished

This text of 84 F.2d 684 (Miller v. First Service Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. First Service Corp., 84 F.2d 684, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4581 (8th Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit in the nature of a creditor’s bill to subject a certain 160-acre tract of land in Wells county, N. D., to the lien of a judgment owned by the plaintiff, on the ground that the judgment debtor, Math Miller, had, while insolvent, transferred the land to his son Peter to defraud creditors.

On our inspection of the record, we have observed that the total value of the land of which the plaintiff sought to divest the son and subject to sale was only $2,-400, as affirmatively shown by undisputed testimony in the record. This court, of its own motion, has taken notice of the insufficiency of the amount involved to support the federal jurisdiction, and the case is reversed, with directions to dismiss, in accordance with our opinion this day filed in Math Miller, Marie Miller and Bertrand F. Miller v. First Service Corporation, 84 F.(2d) 680.

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

WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit in the nature of a creditor’s bill to subject a certain 160-acre tract of land in Wells county, N. D., to the lien of a judgment owned by the plaintiff, on the ground that the judgment debtor, Math Miller, had, while insolvent, transferred the land to his son Peter to defraud creditors.

On our inspection of the record, we have observed that the total value of the land of which the plaintiff sought to divest the son and subject to sale was only $2,-400, as affirmatively shown by undisputed testimony in the record. This court, of its own motion, has taken notice of the insufficiency of the amount involved to support the federal jurisdiction, and the case is reversed, with directions to dismiss, in accordance with our opinion this day filed in Math Miller, Marie Miller and Bertrand F. Miller v. First Service Corporation, 84 F.(2d) 680.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 F.2d 684, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-first-service-corp-ca8-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack