TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

A. F. Dreyer v. Gilmore Greene

A. F. DREYER, Appellant, v. Gilmore GREENE, A/K/A Thaddeus Green A/K/A Thaddeus Gilmore Greene, Alleged Bankrupt, Et Al., Appellees

A. F. Dreyer v. Gilmore Greene, 267 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 5, 1959
Docket
No. 17572
Judges
Tuttle, Cameron, Wisdom
Citations
267 F.2d 441959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4854

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from an order of the District Court affirming an order of the referee in bankruptcy dismissing an involuntary petition in bankruptcy must be affirmed.

Appellant here complains that the referee dismissed the petition erroneously because the only evidence as to solvency of the alleged bankrupt was improperly admitted, and, even if admissible, was not sufficient to establish solvency under bankruptcy standards. We agree that no competent evidence was introduced touching upon the solvency of *45 Greene, since the bookkeeper testified without having the records before the court, and testified only as to book values and not as to “fair valuations.”

1

See Langham, Langston & Burnett v. Blanchard, 5 Cir., 246 F.2d 529 .

The weakness of appellant's case, however, is that the referee based his dismissal on the further ground “that Petitioner has failed to substantiate the allegations set forth in his petition.” These allegations charged several acts of bankruptcy. Except as to solvency, under the first act, the burden of proving these charges was on the plaintiff. The record before us is silent as to several of the essential ingredients in each of the alleged acts of bankruptcy. We cannot say, therefore, that the referee erred in dismissing the petition or that the district court erred in affirming that order.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. “A person stall be deemed insolvent ■within the provisions of this Act whenever the aggregate of his property * * shall not at a fair valuation be sufficient in amount to pay his debts.” 11 U.S.C.A. § 1 (19).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 11985: 11998: 12005: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Perry336 F. Supp. 420 (D.S.C. 1972)
  2. Moecker v. Johnson (In re Transit Group, Inc.)332 B.R. 45 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005)
  3. United States v. Sternberg (In re Sternberg)229 B.R. 238 (S.D. Fla. 1998)
  4. Havee v. Belk775 F.2d 1209 (4th Cir. 1985)

Most recent

  1. Moecker v. Johnson (In re Transit Group, Inc.)332 B.R. 45 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005)
  2. United States v. Sternberg (In re Sternberg)229 B.R. 238 (S.D. Fla. 1998)
  3. Havee v. Belk775 F.2d 1209 (4th Cir. 1985)
  4. In re Perry336 F. Supp. 420 (D.S.C. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Langham, Langston & Burnett v. Blanchard, 246 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1957) 33

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list