Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-08-29

Chiefly in Farming or Tillage of the sol
For some time there has been cues
tion as to what persons arc exempt fror
T the provisions OF tho United State
bankruptcy law, in view OF the fac
4 that the act specifies that "a wage
Garner or person engaged chiefly il
farming or the tilling of the soil
h cannot be declared bankrupts. Will
1t 10 clear enough that PERSONS who ar
a dependent for livelihood upon th
A wages they receive at stated neriods
there has been some uncertainty in TIN
public mind as 10 just what rerson
were contemplated in the act Under thu
farming class. 1t is clear that per
son whose sole dependence is in hi
farm is farmer In the meaning of tn,
act and exempt from Its provisions, bu
many farmers are engaged in business
10 addition to their farming pursuits
in fact, many are SO engaged, and il
has been question as to what exten
fVrmer could be engaged Ia Other
business to allow him to come unoer th,
/ exemption clause.
The opinion handed down by Judp,
Bradford in the United States Court 10
this CITY few days ago, iD the matter
OF an application on the part OF credi
tors Of William ID. A. Mackey to have
Mr.. Mackey adjudicated an involuntary
bankrupt, settles the question and de-
termines who arc farmers IN the mean
ing OF the act. The opinion is OF
special interest in view of the fact that
1t IS the first legal decision on the new
law bearing upon this very important
point and establishes for the future the
status OF persons engaged in farming
pursuits as contemplated In the bank
ruptcy law.
In the Maokey proceedings the peti +.
tion OF the creditors set forth, among
other things, that the defendant, for
the greater portion Of six months next
presiding the filing of the petition,
which was done on March 21st, 1901,
had bis principal place of business in
Third Street Market, this city that he
was insolyent, and that On or about
January lst, 1901, he committed an act
of bankruptcy, in that he then made
a general assignment for the benefit Of
his creditors. Mr.. Maokey, in his
answer, among other things, alleged
that the District Court for the District
OF Delaware had no Jurisdiction to ad-
judge him bankrupt, because: First,
ne bad not had his PRINCIPAL place of
business or resided Or had his domieile
within the Respective territorial iuris.
diction of said court for the preceding
ak months, or the greater portion
thereof, from the time of the filing of
the said petition in bankruptcy second,
that for the preceding SIX months to tho
Hing of the said petition and for a
.iopg time prior thereto and oontinu-
p9nsly to this date, the chief place of
5nusiness, residence and domicile of the
4tspondent has been and now ia in
PIX township, near Hickory Hill, in
s5ps county Of Chester and State Of
ennsylvania. and within the terri
t9rial limits and jurisdiction of the
district Court of the United States in
md for the Eastern District of Penn.
's{lvania; third, that for the preceding
,liS months, or the greater PORTION
whereof, to the filing of said petition,
fhe said respondent did not have a
place OF business, within the purview
lof the act OF Congress relating to bank
Rruptcy, within the territorial limits OF
swid court; fourth, that for the preced.
1ng six months to the filing Of said
petition, and for many years prior
'{nereto and continuously to this date,
2ne respondent has been engaged chiefly
|1n farming or tilling the soil, being
7Fner or occupant of farm of 100
H9res situated near Hickory Hill, Ches.
- county, Pa, which he personally con-
uucted, and in the carrying on of which
hnp the business done thereon, the
Kreater part of his debts were con.
fracted, and he is therefore excepted by
cypress terms from the operation of the
stip act OF Congress relating to bank
fubtcy.
II was alleged that for several years
Hs1or to and including December oath,
1YQ0, Mr.. Mackey occupied a stall in
Third street Market for the exhibit
|tion and sale of meat, eggs, poultry,
vegetables and other farm produce. and
that nearly all he sold except grain.
hay, and possibly some straw. was
wrought by him from his farm in his |
mnrket wagon to Third Street Market, I
Hnd there disposed of. A comparH- |
t1Fely trifling portion OF the contents of |
n1s wagon, it is also alleged, was sold |
4nu delivered at Newark and other |
phces in this district, including several |
n1pres in Wilmington but all the rest
Eas taken to his market stall. He at.
59nded market once a week, leaving
nome early on Friday morning and |
fqnching his stall about noon OF the
epme day. During the afternoon of
mat day and the forenoon of Saturday
no was employed in selling the produce
~ had brought from Chester county,
1ehvIng Wilmington about midday and /
reaching his home late in the evening
qt the same day. A portion of what hs
f9ld from his wagon or stall consisted
NJ products of his farm, and the resi-
4He, being the larger portion, it is
43zaged, was furnished to him princi-
!'n'y IN Chester county by others, to
~ ~ 9oiu on commission, or was bought
ry pm principally there for resale on
ui8 cwn account, or consisted of calves,
lhups or other live stock bought by him
from others and slaughtered and pre-.
phred on his farm. He also bought in
Wilmington a portion, though small,
1f what he sold at his stall. What he
bpnght nom others In Chester county
Voc paid for there and, after selling
produce on commission for persons in
ll1nt county, he there made settlement
With them. Most of the produce fur
4iahed tn him by others in that county
Nas delivered On his farm and thepos
l4ken to his market stall. While he
11nght chiefly in Chester county he
'old almost exclusively in Wilmington.
A7d principally at his stall. There
ms no evidence at the hearing that
Ehat he there disposed of was delivered
pursuant to contracts entered into else
mere, and in the absence Of such eyI.
1fnce it must be assumed that, in
1arketing the produaa.. tho contract Of