Citation network
KreitleIn Vs. Ferger
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1915
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 21 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Kreitlein v. FergerSearch
-
U.S. 21 (1915) Kreitlein v. FergerSearch
-
statutory reason, the debt sued on was by law excepted from the operation of the discharge. B. F. Roden Grocery Co. v. LeslieSearch
-
Tompkins v. WilliamsSearch
-
Van Norman v. YoungSearch
-
Beck v. CrumSearch
-
Laffoon v. KernerSearch
-
N.C. 281. Compare Hancock v. FarnumSearch
-
U. S. 645 . There were some decisions to the contrary under the Act of 1841. Among them was Sorden v. GatewoodSearch
-
an action in trover, as for a fraudulent conversion, instead of assumpsit for a balance due on open account. Crawford v. BurkeSearch
-
rather than as a judgment into which the liability for the flour had been merged. See Matteson v. DewarSearch
-
statute, yet it has likewise been held that the use of the initials is an irregularity, and not a fatal defect. Queen v. DaleSearch
-
State v. WebsterSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Perkins v. McDowellSearch
-
Minor v. StateSearch
-
State v. JohnsonSearch
-
used in listing creditors in bankrupt schedules, but the only decision found which deals with this question is Gatliff v. MackeySearch
-
is not sufficient to deprive the debtor of the benefit of the order discharging provable debts. See also Matteson v. DewarSearch
-
any who did not receive actual notice of the bankruptcy proceeding in time to have their claims allowed. Birkett v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Troy v. RudnickSearch
-
or on the bankrupt to show that the creditor had notice in time to have proved his claim and had it allowed. Steele v. ThalheimerSearch
-
Alling v. StrakaSearch
-
Hallagan v. DowellSearch
-
Parker v. MurphySearch
-
Wineman v. FisherSearch
-
Fields v. RustSearch
-
Bailey v. GleasonSearch
-
Custard v. WigdersonSearch
-
It seems generally to have been held that mailing a notice thus addressed is prima facie sufficient. True v. CollinsSearch
-
Clarke v. SharpeSearch
-
Mann v. MoorsSearch
-
People's Bank v. ScalzoSearch
-
Marton v. WestcottSearch
-
Bartlett v. RobinsonSearch
-
Bank of United States v. CarnealSearch
-
It has been held that a claim is not duly scheduled if the name of the creditor is improperly spelled ( Custard v. WigdersonSearch
-
or if the street number is given, but the name of the city of his residence is omitted ( Troy v. RudnickSearch
-
or if the creditor is listed as residing in one city when he actually lives in another ( Marshall v. EnglishSearch
-
Birkett v. ColumbiaSearch
-
address should be stated in every instance where the creditor lives in a city having a postal delivery system. Evans v. FleuringSearch
-
Weidenfeld v. TillinghastSearch
-
Misc. 93. See also Cagliostro v. IndelleSearch
-
McKee v. PrebleSearch
-
As this Court pointed out in Birkett v. ColumbiaSearch
-
to duly schedule. To this effect are a number of well considered cases in the state courts. In Columbia Bank v. BirkettSearch
-
In Parker v. MurphySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Kreitlein v. FergerSearch
-
B. F. Roden Grocery Co. v. LeslieSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial