Heard v. Arnold & DuBose
Heard v. Arnold & DuBose
Opinion of the Court
The defendants pleaded their discharge in bankruptcy to .the plaintiff’s action on aelaim provable in the bankrupt court. 'Due notice was given by publication in two newspapers, but :none served personally, or by mail, upon this plaintiff, nor was her name in the schedule of creditors. We think that the ¡bankrupt law requires notice by publication to meet those .cases where the creditors’ names are not in the schedule, or furnished to the marshal, and in the absence of fraud in omitting the plaintiff’s name as creditor in the schedule, the discharge operates to bar her right to recover. Three kinds of notices are provided for in the act. First, newspaper notices;,second, notice personally or by mail to all creditors upon the schedule, or whose names may be given the marshal by the debtor in addition; and, third, such personal or other service, to any persons concerned as the warrant specifies: Bump, section 5019, page 384, 8th edition. The debtor should give the names of all the creditors in the schedule, but lie may omit for some reason or another, somebody; then lie may, if lie remembers in time, give such name to the marshal afterwards, and he is bound to notify such person though not in
Let the judgment be affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- M. Fannie Heard, in error v. Arnold & DuBose, in error
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published