TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Papale

In re Papale, 17 F. Supp. 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, E.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
July 9, 1936
Docket
No. 30003
Judges
Moscowit
Citations
17 F. Supp. 1461936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1747

Opinion of the Court — Moscowit

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MOSCOWIT-Z, District Judge.

This is a motion to vacate the stay granted April 7, 1936, enjoining William Spicuglia, an infant, and his guardian ad litem, Giuseppina Spicuglia, their attorney, and the sheriff of Kings county from taking further steps to collect a judgment of $6,600 obtained in an action in the Supreme Court of the state of New York, entitled William Spicuglia, an infant, by Giuseppina ’Spicuglia, his guardian ad litem, plaintiff, against Anthony Papale, an infant, by Felice Papale, his guardian ad litem, Felice Papale, and Virginia Papale, defendants. A similar motion is made in the case of Virginia Papale.

The action upon which the judgment was obtained was based upon the willful and malicious tort of the defendant Anthony Papale, thirteen and a half years of age, in that he willfully and maliciously discharged a B-B gun into the eye of William Spicuglia, nine years of age.

It appears that the bankrupts purchased a B-B gun for their son Anthony who, with their knowledge, used it in shooting lead slugs at cats, birds, and at his playmates and that as a result of shooting William Spicuglia, Spicuglia lost the sight of one eye.

Certainly, parents who permit a child thirteen and a half year’s of age to possess an air rifle and to shoot lead pellets indiscriminately should be held accountable for the acts of their son, and especially in a case of'this kind where a child nine years of age has lost the sight of one eye as the result of the wanton and willful negligence of the parents in permitting their child to possess arid shoot an air rifle. They should not receive consideration from a court in bankruptcy and the judgment should not be discharged in bankruptcy.

Motion to vacate the stay is granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1940: 11965: 11984: 11988: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bowse v. Cornell (In re Cornell)42 B.R. 860 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1984)
  2. Jones v. Whitacre (In re Whitacre)93 B.R. 584 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1988)
  3. Perrett v. Johnson175 So. 2d 497 (Miss. 1965)
  4. In re Goodman35 F. Supp. 623 (E.D.N.Y. 1940)

Most recent

  1. Jones v. Whitacre (In re Whitacre)93 B.R. 584 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1988)
  2. Bowse v. Cornell (In re Cornell)42 B.R. 860 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1984)
  3. Perrett v. Johnson175 So. 2d 497 (Miss. 1965)
  4. In re Goodman35 F. Supp. 623 (E.D.N.Y. 1940)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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