Perry

Perry v. Baumann

Good Law
122 F.2d 409·1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2982
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 4, 1941No. 9778California530 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mathews, J.

This appeal is from an order dismissing a proceeding by appellant, William H. Perry, under § 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203 .

Appellant’s petition alleged that he was primarily bona fide personally engaged in producing products of the soil and derived the principal part of his income from such operations. Thus, in effect, the petition alleged that appellant was a farmer within the meaning of § 75. 1 Appellees, *410 Anna Baumann, Maud E. Lane and Lane Mortgage Company, as trustee for George A. Hendricks and others, creditors of appellant, filed motions to dismiss the proceeding. The motions of Anna Baumann and Lane Mortgage Company were on the ground that appellant was not primarily bona fide personally engaged in producing products of the soil, did not derive the principal part of his income from such operations and was not a farmer within the meaning of § 75. Maud E. Lane’s motion was on the ground just mentioned and two others, namely, that the proceeding was not instituted in good faith, and that it was impossible for appellant to rehabilitate himself or to offer his creditors a fair, just or equitable composition.

Thus each of the motions raised issues of fact.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.