In re Bennett
Citations
- 153 F. 673
- 82 C.C.A. 531
- 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4447
Syllabus
<p>1„ Bankruptcy — Distribution of Estate — Priorities under State Law.</p> <p>While a state law cannot of its own force determine priorities under a national bankruptcy law, Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 64b(5), 30 Stat. 563 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3448], which provides that “debts owing to any person who by the laws of the state * * * is entitled to priority” shall be given priority in the distribution of the bankrupt’s estate, adopts the law of the state, and makes it the applicable federal law in determining priorities.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Effect of national bankruptcy act on state insolvency laws and on assignments for benefit of creditors, see note to Carling v. Seymour Lumber Co., 51 C. O. A. 11.]</p> <p>2. Same — Claim fob Materials Furnished to Manufacturing Company— Kentucky Statute.</p> <p>Ky. St. 1903, § 2487, which provides, inter alia, that persons who shall have furnished materials or supplies for the carrying on of the business of any manufacturing company shall have a lien therefor on its property and effects involved in the business, when the same shall be assigned for the benefit of creditors, or shall in any way come to be distributed among creditors, whether by operation of law or by act of such company, which lien, as provided by following sections, is superior to any mortgage or incumbrance thereafter created, while it may not create a technical lion until the happening of one of the conditions mentioned, gives a substantial right in or inchoate lien upon the property from the date of Hie furnishing of the material or supplies which comes within the spirit and purpose of Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 64b(5), 30 Stat. 563 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3448], and on the bankruptcy of the company entitles such a claim to priority over the claims of general creditors.</p> <p>3. Same — Statutes—Construction—Kentucky Lien Statutes.</p> <p>Ky. St. 1903, | 2494, which provides that “no lien provided for in this article” shall attach, unless a
Judges: Cochran, Durton, Lurton, Richards, Severens
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Courtney v. Fidelity Trust Co.Sixth Circuit· 1914-12-18· cited 31×
- In Re BrannonFifth Circuit· 1933-01-18· cited 29×
- Strom v. PeikesSecond Circuit· 1941-11-24· cited 17×
- In re I. Rheinstrom & Sons Co.E.D. Kentucky· 1913-06-16· cited 17×
- In re HuxollSixth Circuit· 1912-02-13· cited 14×
- Central Trust Co. v. George Lueders & Co.Sixth Circuit· 1915-03-02· cited 12×
- Jones v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co.Sixth Circuit· 1934-11-07· cited 10×
- City of Dallas v. RyanFifth Circuit· 1933-01-18· cited 9×
- Bennett v. American Credit Indemnity Co.Sixth Circuit· 1908-03-03· cited 8×
- Louisville Woolen Mills v. JohnsonSixth Circuit· 1916-01-04· cited 7×
- Hamilton v. David C. Beggs Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio· 1909-06-19· cited 6×
- Wilson v. BenhamNinth Circuit· 1919-10-27· cited 5×
- Petition of RoushSixth Circuit· 1913-11-11· cited 4×
- In re Starks-Ullman Saddlery Co.Sixth Circuit· 1909-07-19· cited 3×
- In re Lynn Camp Coal Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky· 1908-12-10· cited 3×
- Wheeler v. JohnsonEighth Circuit· 1928-05-04· cited 1×
- Cheek v. Division of Labor Law EnforcementNinth Circuit· 1948-03-04· cited 1×
- Wells v. GannonSixth Circuit· 1935-04-12
- In re Floyd & Bohr Co.W.D. Kentucky· 1912-12-20
Cites
46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. FisherSupreme Court· 1805-02-21· cited 544×
- Randolph v. ScruggsSupreme Court· 1903-05-18· cited 205×
- Greenhood and Others v. RandallSupreme Court· 1884-05-05· cited 60×
- Shropshire, Woodliff & Co. v. BushSupreme Court· 1907-01-07· cited 53×
- Derby v. Worcester CountyFirst Circuit· 1900-04-20· cited 49×
- In re Rouse, Hazard & Co.Seventh Circuit· 1899-01-03· cited 49×
- Wilson v. Pennsylvania Trust Co.Third Circuit· 1902-04-25· cited 29×
- Central Trust Co. v. Richmond, N., I. & B. R.Sixth Circuit· 1895-05-07· cited 28×
- In re MulliganD. Massachusetts· 1902-08-01· cited 25×
- In re Kerby-Dennis Co.Seventh Circuit· 1899-06-14· cited 25×
- Harris v. Youngstown Bridge Co.Sixth Circuit· 1898-11-09· cited 25×
- In re GrisslerSecond Circuit· 1905-03-24· cited 23×
- In re LairdSixth Circuit· 1901-06-04· cited 22×
- Jones v. Arena Publishing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1898-04-16· cited 21×
- In re HooverW.D. Pennsylvania· 1902-01-21· cited 20×
- In re MitchellD. Delaware· 1902-04-08· cited 16×
- Union Trust Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court· 1883-03-12· cited 13×
- Northern Pac. R. v. LamontEighth Circuit· 1895-06-04· cited 13×
- In re LewisD. Massachusetts· 1900-03-02· cited 11×
- In re DubleM.D. Pennsylvania· 1902-09-26· cited 10×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.