Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Roberts v. Kimbrough. in Re Plowden, 212 F.2d 787, 4th Cir. (1954)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Edward Roberts appealed a decision in the bankruptcy proceeding of Plowden & Roberts partnership, which was previously before the court. 2) The partnership was adjudged bankrupt in 1943 and a trustee was appointed to represent the partnership. The trustee settled a lawsuit against the US under the Lucas Act for $82,500, which Roberts claimed was "after acquired" property he was entitled to as the only non-bankrupt partner. 3) The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Lucas Act claim arose from partnership operations and the payment was rightly made to the trustee to pay remaining partnership debts, not to divert to individual partners.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Roberts v. Kimbrough. in Re Plowden, 212 F.2d 787, 4th Cir. (1954)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    24 views2 pages
    1) Edward Roberts appealed a decision in the bankruptcy proceeding of Plowden & Roberts partnership, which was previously before the court. 2) The partnership was adjudged bankrupt in 1943 and a trustee was appointed to represent the partnership. The trustee settled a lawsuit against the US under the Lucas Act for $82,500, which Roberts claimed was "after acquired" property he was entitled to as the only non-bankrupt partner. 3) The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Lucas Act claim arose from partnership operations and the payment was rightly made to the trustee to pay remaining partnership debts, not to divert to individual partners.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1954-05-03 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 212 F.2d 787 Docket: 6762_1

    Original Title

    Roberts v. Kimbrough. In Re Plowden, 212 F.2d 787, 4th Cir. (1954)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Edward Roberts appealed a decision in the bankruptcy proceeding of Plowden & Roberts partnership, which was previously before the court. 2) The partnership was adjudged bankrupt in 1943 and a trustee was appointed to represent the partnership. The trustee settled a lawsuit against the US under the Lucas Act for $82,500, which Roberts claimed was "after acquired" property he was entitled to as the only non-bankrupt partner. 3) The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Lucas Act claim arose from partnership operations and the payment was rightly made to the trustee to pay remaining partnership debts, not to divert to individual partners.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    24 views2 pages

    Roberts v. Kimbrough. in Re Plowden, 212 F.2d 787, 4th Cir. (1954)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Edward Roberts appealed a decision in the bankruptcy proceeding of Plowden & Roberts partnership, which was previously before the court. 2) The partnership was adjudged bankrupt in 1943 and a trustee was appointed to represent the partnership. The trustee settled a lawsuit against the US under the Lucas Act for $82,500, which Roberts claimed was "after acquired" property he was entitled to as the only non-bankrupt partner. 3) The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Lucas Act claim arose from partnership operations and the payment was rightly made to the trustee to pay remaining partnership debts, not to divert to individual partners.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    212 F.

    2d 787

    ROBERTS
    v.
    KIMBROUGH.
    In re PLOWDEN et al.
    No. 6762.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued April 9, 1954.
    Decided May 3, 1954.

    Edward L. Roberts, pro se.


    Edward Gallagher, Washington, D. C. (Paul A. Cooper and Frank B.
    Gary, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellee.
    Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    This is another appeal by Edward L. Roberts in the Plowden & Roberts


    bankruptcy proceeding which was before this court in Roberts v. Kimbrough, 4
    Cir., 206 F.2d 257. The partnership of Plowden & Roberts was adjudged
    bankrupt on March 17, 1943, and Kimbrough was regularly elected as trustee in
    bankruptcy at a creditors meeting and gave bond and was duly appointed to that
    position. As trustee in bankruptcy of the partnership he instituted suit against
    the United States under the Lucas Act, 41 U.S.C.A. 106 note, to recover
    damages sustained by the partnership in connection with certain construction
    contracts. That litigation was settled upon the payment to the trustee of $82,500
    and the dismissal with prejudice of the Lucas Act suit. Roberts contends that
    this payment was "after acquired" property to which the trustee in bankruptcy is
    not entitled and that, as the only one of the partners who has not been adjudged
    bankrupt, he is entitled to the whole thereof. It is conceded that the total amount
    of the payment is not sufficient to pay the remaining debts of the partnership.
    This contention of Roberts is entirely without merit. The claim under the Lucas
    Act arose out of the operations of the partnership and that act is properly
    construed, not as granting a gratuity or as creating new rights but as recognizing

    existing rights and equities and providing means for their enforcement. See
    Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529, 11 S. Ct. 885, 35 L.Ed. 550. The case is very
    different from Harlan v. Archer, 4 Cir., 79 F.2d 673, 102 A.L.R. 149, where the
    court pointed out that the effect of the act of Congress there under consideration
    was to create an entirely new right.
    2

    Furthermore, the payment in question was made to the trustee in bankruptcy as


    representative of the partnership, not as representative of the individual
    partners; and we know of no principle of law which would permit the partners
    to divert it from the partnership creditors, who put labor and materials into the
    projects which gave rise to the claim resulting in the payment, and to whom it
    belongs in law, in equity, in justice, and in common honesty.

    Affirmed.

    You might also like