Wight v. Condict

Supreme Court

Wight v. Condict

154 U.S. 666, 14 S. Ct. 1215, 26 L. Ed. 562, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1497

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 2, 1881

Docket280

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 U.S. 666 (Wight v. Condict) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wight v. Condict, 154 U.S. 666, 14 S. Ct. 1215, 26 L. Ed. 562, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1497 (1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

announced the judgment of the court.

The decree in this case is affirmed. There can be no pretence that Condict owed the bankrupts anything. They bought his interest in the limited partnership of which he was once a member and paid him for it. If the creditors of that partnership have any just claims against him on account of what has been done, they must proceed as they may be advised to enforce their rights, but the assignee .of the bankrupts is in no respect their representative for that purpose. He can reduce to his possession whatever is owing to the bankrupts and also what they have disposed of in fraud of the bankrupt law; but Condict was not their debtor when *667 tlie bankruptcy occurred, and there is no allegation that what they did in respect to his interest in the limited partnership was forbidden by the bankrupt law.

Mr. John E. Risley and Mr. Daniel 8. Riddle for appellant. Mr. William, P. Chambers for appellee.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

announced the judgment of the court.

The decree in this case is affirmed. There can be no pretence that Condict owed the bankrupts anything. They bought his interest in the limited partnership of which he was once a member and paid him for it. If the creditors of that partnership have any just claims against him on account of what has been done, they must proceed as they may be advised to enforce their rights, but the assignee .of the bankrupts is in no respect their representative for that purpose. He can reduce to his possession whatever is owing to the bankrupts and also what they have disposed of in fraud of the bankrupt law; but Condict was not their debtor when *667 tlie bankruptcy occurred, and there is no allegation that what they did in respect to his interest in the limited partnership was forbidden by the bankrupt law.

Mr. John E. Risley and Mr. Daniel 8. Riddle for appellant. Mr. William, P. Chambers for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 U.S. 666, 14 S. Ct. 1215, 26 L. Ed. 562, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 1497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wight-v-condict-scotus-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack