Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Grafton v. Lloyd

86 F.2d 205

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1936-11-10
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by an alleged bankrupt from an order of adjudication of bankruptcy. The appellant specifies seven errors, but confines his argument to the presentation of the proposition that the petition in involuntary bankruptcy should have been denied because three of the petitioners were not creditors of the bankrupt. These three creditors were judgment creditors, but an appeal has been taken by the alleged bankrupt from these judgments and was pending at the time of the filing of the involuntary petition in bankruptcy. The bankrupt contends that under section 1049 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of California the action was pending during the time for appeal, and, therefore, that the judgment is not a provable debt within the meaning of section 63 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U.S C.A. § 103 and note).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Grafton v. Lloyd. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 3 opinions

GRAFTON v. LLOYD,86 F.2d 205(9th Cir. 1936)

GRAFTON v. LLOYD et al.^fn*

No. 8293.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

November 10, 1936.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, Central Division.

Bethiah J. Lloyd, Florence Neuhart, and Hugh F. Neuhart filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Albert K. Grafton. From an order of adjudication of bankruptcy, the alleged bankrupt appeals.

Order affirmed.

George E. Downing, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

G.P. Adams and Charles E. Beardsley, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by an alleged bankrupt from an order of adjudication of bankruptcy.

The appellant specifies seven errors, but confines his argument to the presentation of the proposition that the petition in involuntary bankruptcy should have been denied because three of the petitioners were not creditors of the bankrupt. These three creditors were judgment creditors, but an appeal has been taken by the alleged bankrupt from these judgments and was pending at the time of the filing of the involuntary petition in bankruptcy.

The bankrupt contends that under section 1049 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of California the action was pending during the time for appeal, and, therefore, that the judgment is not a provable debt within the meaning of section 63 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U.S.C.A. § 103 and note).

There are three answers to this proposition: First, that the allegation of the petition to the effect that the petitioners were creditors of the defendant was not denied, and, therefore, admitted; second, the bankrupt testified that he was indebted to these creditors; third, it has been determined by this court that a judgment debt upon a California judgment is provable in bankruptcy, notwithstanding the pendency of appeal. Moore v. Douglas (C.C.A.) 230 F. 399.

Order affirmed.

Rehearing denied Dec. 14, 1936. ↩