The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-11-18
Exemptions I'm Bankruptcy,

Judge Treat, of Missouri, has rendered al
important decision in the United States Dis.
trict Court, covering disputed point in
bankruptcy matters. The case was as fol-
lows: In December, 1873, four brothers
composing the firm OF 5. Fl. Richardson 4
Co. were adjudged bankrupts. They were
all heads of families. but none Of them haG
any individual estate. S. II. Richardson
claimed certain exemptions, and applied to
the court to have the amount allowed out OF
the assets of the firm.
In rendering his decision Judge Treat said
that ut an early day the court had held that
where there was no individual estate eXemp-
tons could be allowed out of the co.partner.
ship assets. Several other United States dis
trict courts have, however. refused to allow
such exemptions, blSing their decisions on
technical grounds. while others, relying upon
State exemption acts and the general bank
ruDt statute, hive maintained the same ISSUES
"a were taken by this court. The very idea
of the bankrupt act is TO leave the debtor in
no worse position than he was before, in
order that after he has surrendered all
his assets he may have enough left to
enable him to start anew and not be
left destitute. In the case Of Cox Us.
Wilder very liberal view was taken of that
act when the Circuit Court overruled the
Distiic' Court in 4 case OF fraudulent con.
yevance. But if, despite such a conveyance
by husband and wife, they are, on its being
set aside n fraudulent against creditors. re-
inStated in their homestead ard dover
rights, why should not debtor. q fortiori,
he allowed the needed or prescribed eXemp.
tons, in the absence Of fraud, out Of any As.
sets in which he is interested: With regard
to the objection that the individual interest
OF q partner in co-partnershp assets is only
in the surplus. the Judge argued that it might
as well be urged that the grantor in a con-
veyance fraudulent to creditors is estOpped
from assaIing the grant.
IF his creditors can set it aside for their
own benefit. although it was valid as he.
tween the parties thereto, and the ground on
which they can thus do so is that they have
an interest in their debtors property enti-
Ting them to subject it TO the payment OF
their demands, and notwithstanding their
rights and the acts of the grantor, he, when
the creditors have Invested the grantee, is
RENTED to his original position as to home.
stead and other exemptions IN said proper
". why should not said debtor, despite his
creditors interest in co-partnershp assets,
or the interest Of co-partnership creditors
IL.
assets the amount of exemptions intended
for the benefit Of himself and family? II bis
individual estate is large enough to furnish
the required exemptions it should be alone
suhi.ct thereto, Just as his individual debts
are primarily chargeabe to his private
estate. His individual creditors, if there is
q surplus in the partnership estate, receive
the benefit thereof If the private estate Is
4 rHha Vel Ia III n
creditors, if not paid out of the cO-partner-
ship fund, have the benefit OF tne private
estate if not exhausted in individual debts.
HENCE the technical rules as to the relation
ship of co-partnership and individual credl-
tors with respect TO co.partnership and PR.
yate estates. if properly applied to eXemp-
tions. would remit the debtor to his private
estate primarily, and if that were insuih-
Gent. then to the co-partnership estate. SO
far is the principle underlying the rule from
defeating the humane doctrine commended for
that logically it requires that doctrine to be
asserted.
There is nothing in the statutes of Mis-
souri, or in the bankrupt act to the contrary,
and. if the scope and object of the laws re-
latino TO bankruptcy are taken into conside-
ration. instead Of narrowing the question to
mere technical rules, due force is given to
what were Intended for humane and wise
provisions in the law. In accordance with
this line of argument, and in unison with
prior rulings of the Court, the Judge or
dered the exemptions to be allowed.
The case is a striking one, and the decision
is good specimen of legal acumen and ar.
pumept, What was the precise nature OF
The exemptions claimed weare not Informed
Ne,c York Findncter.