Rivas v. Noble

Fifth Circuit

Rivas v. Noble

241 F. 673, 154 C.C.A. 431, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1814

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 1917

DocketNo. 3036

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 241 F. 673 (Rivas v. Noble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rivas v. Noble, 241 F. 673, 154 C.C.A. 431, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1814 (5th Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

WAEKER, Circuit Judge.

Complaint is made of an order of the District Court, which affirmed an order made by the referee requiring the bankrupt to deliver to his trustee a diamond finger ring, worth $650, which the bankrupt owned and wore. It is not contended that there is any statute of Florida, the state of the residence of the bankrupt, which sustains the claim that the ring is exempt from the payment of its owner’s debts. We have not been referred to and have not found any authoritative ruling of a Florida court indicating the recognition of the existence, in that state of a common or customary law which would enable the bankrupt to sustain a claim that the ring is-exempt. We are aware of no authentic statement of the common law as it existed before the matter of exemptions was dealt with by statutes, which would support a decision that a debtor is entitled, as against his creditors, to- retain as exempt an article of luxury or personal adornment of such kind and value as the ring in question. In short, we are aware of no law which requires a conclusion different from that reached by the District Court.

The petition to superintend and revise is denied.

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

WAEKER, Circuit Judge.

Complaint is made of an order of the District Court, which affirmed an order made by the referee requiring the bankrupt to deliver to his trustee a diamond finger ring, worth $650, which the bankrupt owned and wore. It is not contended that there is any statute of Florida, the state of the residence of the bankrupt, which sustains the claim that the ring is exempt from the payment of its owner’s debts. We have not been referred to and have not found any authoritative ruling of a Florida court indicating the recognition of the existence, in that state of a common or customary law which would enable the bankrupt to sustain a claim that the ring is-exempt. We are aware of no authentic statement of the common law as it existed before the matter of exemptions was dealt with by statutes, which would support a decision that a debtor is entitled, as against his creditors, to- retain as exempt an article of luxury or personal adornment of such kind and value as the ring in question. In short, we are aware of no law which requires a conclusion different from that reached by the District Court.

The petition to superintend and revise is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 F. 673, 154 C.C.A. 431, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivas-v-noble-ca5-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack