H. W. Bass Drilling Co. v. Ray. H. W. Bass Drilling Co. v. Ray.

H. W. Bass Drilling Co. v. Ray‪.‬

1939.C10.40158 101 F.2D 316

    • USD 0.99
    • USD 0.99

Descripción editorial

It seems to us that counsel for appellant make a wrong assumption on which they base their conclusion that appellees equitable lien comes within the requirements of the Colorado chattel mortgage statute and had to be placed of public record, if possession of the chattels had not been taken by appellee before bankruptcy, to save its validity; and that assumption is that the Colorado Supreme Court has so construed its statute. In their brief filed with the motion they say: "The holding of the Bogdon case, Bogdon v. Fort, 75 Colo. 231, 225 P. 247, however, is controlled by one essential fact not found in this matter, i.e., in the Bogdon case the holder of an equitable lien had taken possession prior to bankruptcy." There is no such statement in the opinion in that case and no discussion of an equitable lien. The situation there was this, as stated by the court:

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1939
27 de enero
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
19
Páginas
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENTAS
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
62.6
KB

Más libros de United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Occusafe Inc. v. Eg&G Rocky Flats Inc. Occusafe Inc. v. Eg&G Rocky Flats Inc.
1995
Grider v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp. Grider v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp.
1989
Robinson v. Beckham Robinson v. Beckham
1994
United States v. Shields United States v. Shields
1993
Liberty Mortgage Co. v. Frey Liberty Mortgage Co. v. Frey
1992
Inselman v. S & J Operating Co. Inselman v. S & J Operating Co.
1995