The Robesonian. [volume] (Lumberton, N.C.) 1870-current, 1908-08-03

IL is generally understood
that the law in North Car
olina is as it was announced in
Burns VS.. Harris, and the Feder-
al courts have adopted the rule
OF Burns VS.. Harris as the law in
this State, which under section 6
Of the bakruptcy act, providing
that in bankruptcy the same ex-
emptlons are to be given as in
proceedings under theState law,
must be followed in ascertaining
the rights Of bankrupts in
North Carolina as to exemptions.
The result in many cases is dis
astrOus to firm creditors: For
instance, there is a case now
before me, as referee in
bankruptcy, where a husband
and wife assert that they are
partners in a small business, the
stock in trade being appraised at
81, ,631. The cash invested in
this business b. these parties
was less than $125. Each of
them claim $500 as exemptions
out of the stock, leaving $631 for
the creditors. whose claims ag-
gregate So, 166. In several cases
within my experience the entire
assets-there being two or three,
sometimes four, partners-have
been taken to give to the several
partners the exemptions to which
they are entitled under the law
of this State. AS have said, l
do not think Burns VS.. Harris,
uponWhich the law on this subject
in North Carolina is based, was
correctly decided. Ifit be law
that a member of the partner
ship has the right, with the con-
sent of his partners, to take his
exemptions out Of the firm
property, then it must also be
right, if the principle is carried
out, of every stockholder in q
corporation with the consent oil
his co-stockholders) to receivE
$500 in personal property, as ex
emptions, out of the assets of the
corporation, to the exclusion O.
, the claims against the corporate
assets Of the creditors of thu
, corporation. Should any lawyer
advocate this last proposition, ht
would be laughed at; and yet i
ought not to be regarded as 81
} absurd, in view Of decisions lik,
= Burns VS.. Harris, because tn
: interest of each member of
firm in the partnership propert,
is precisely the same as that o
each stockholder of a corporatio.
in the corporate property, viz
his share of the surplus assets
after the payment Of the debt
. of the corporation.
, | have often thought that tn
bankruptcy act, in order that tn
h respective rights of creditors an
0 debtors all over the countr
V might be well understood, shoul
J, disregard the various exemptio
e laws of the State, and adopt on
: measure of exemptions for banE
: rupts throughout the Unite
), States. Should this not /
/ thought capable of accomplish
: ment, efforts should certainly /
d made by the different ccmme
e cial associations to secure legi
n lation, federal and State, to tn
e effect that partners should NJ
h be, as in the greater number {
S States they are not, entitled
1t exemptions out of partnersh:
y property until the firm debts al
e paid; nor should any debtor
y entitled to property as eXemp
is ions when that property is u
e paid for, as against the claim (
Al the creditor for the purcha
'r price; nor should any person |
entitled as exemptions to goCt
il out Of his stock in trade of
10 greater value than what he h;
le actually, either in money
le property, put into the bushes
le If the business men Of the coul
r try would bend their efforts
(, secure legislation of this chara
IN ter, l feel sure that they wou
le meet with prompt success.
n. Very truly yours,
OF F. W. THOMAS.
S.