which as we have seen is a comprehensive term, but not wage-earnings, and so not effective to exempt him from liability here.

*

Question 780: (1) Under the Bankruptcy Law, is a wageearner entitled to file a petition in bankruptcy? Is he subject to involuntary proceedings? How is a wage-earner defined by the law? If he makes $2,000 a year as a carpenter, is he a wageearner within the meaning of the bankruptcy act? Why?

(2) A lawyer works as clerk for a law firm at a salary of $1,200 a year. Can he be made an involuntary bankrupt?

(3) A teamster owning his own outfit does a drayage business for all who will employ him. Is he subject to involuntary proceedings?

§ 813. (Bankruptcy, Sec. 23.) Persons engaged chiefly in farming or tilling the soil.

66*

Case 781. Matter of Brown, 284 Fed. (D. C. Mo.) 899. FARIS, DISTRICT JUDGE: the sole question presented and now remaining in the case is whether the acts, dealings, occupation and business of Brown render him exempt under the statute from adjudication in this sort of a proceeding.

"This statute is fairly plain. The facts alone are troublesome always and in the case at bar peculiarly so, because of their involution and the many and diverse activities, dealings and interests of the alleged bankrupt.

"Whatever other courts have said and whatever the language of the statute and the logic of the situation may seem to infer, it has been held in this jurisdiction that the word 'farmer' and 'tillage of the soil' are synonymous, ; also it seems to be fairly well settled that the status of the alleged bankrupt is to be determined as of the date at which the act or acts of bankruptcy were committed.

Question 781: (1) A owns a farm and rents it to a tenant: Is A a farmer or tiller of the soil within the meaning of the bankruptcy law?

(2) A having amassed some money in the farming business, sells his farm and moves to town, living as a retired farmer. Is he subject to involuntary bankruptcy proceedings?

(3) A being in mercantile business becomes insolvent and commits an act of bankruptcy on August 15th. On August 18th, he sells his store and buys a farm and starts farming. On September 1st, a petition in bankruptcy is filed against him. He defends that he is a farmer and moves that the petition be dismissed. Should the motion be allowed?

Case 782. Rice v. Bordner, 140 Federal Reports, page 566.

ARCHBALD, DISTRICT JUDGE: "The depositions which have been taken are directed to whether or not the alleged bankrupt was a farmer, but it is a question whether that issue is properly raised by the pleadings. It is not stated in the petition what was his occupation, nor is it negatived that he was principally engaged in farming, one or the other of which was called for. In re Taylor, 4 Am. Bankr. Rep. 515, 102 Fed. 728, 42 C. C. A. 1; In re Bellah, 8 Am. Bankr. Rep. 310, 116 Fed. 69; In re Mero, 12 Am. Bankr. Rep. 171, 128 Fed. 630; In re Callison, 12 Am. Bankr. Rep. 344, 130 Fed. 987; In re Brett, 12 Am. Bankr. Rep. 492, 130 Fed. 981; In re Levingston, 13 Am. Bankr. Rep. 357. And the answer, on the other hand, expressly avers that he was a farmer, to which there is no replication. Under the ordinary rules of equity pleading this made the answer conclusive upon the subject, and, if the case had been set down for a hearing on petition and answer, it would have had to be dismissed. In re Taylor, 4 Am. Bankr. Rep. 515, 102 Fed. 728, 42 C. C. A. 1.

"But, passing that by, the proofs that have been submitted lead to the same result. They show that in a small way the respondent may be said to have had several occupations. He had a store; he was agent for the sale of fertilizers; and he ran a farm. The question is in which business was he chiefly engaged. This is to be determined by which was of paramount importance to him, or on which he depended for a living (In re Mackey,

6 Am. Bankr. Rep. 577, 110 Fed. 355; In re Drake, 8 Am. Bankr. Rep. 137, 114 Fed. 229), about which there can be no serious question. No doubt at one time he had a store of considerable local importance; the election district being named after it. But that was many years ago, and the business had been so eaten into by other stores which have started up about him at no great distance that what he was doing in that line, at the time these proceedings were instituted, was insignificant. It is true that he had a fair mercantile rating in Dun's and Bradstreet's Agencies, and that for the purpose of mercantile appraisement he made oath that his business for the previous year had amounted to $1,000, and the year before that to $1,200. But it is shown by his bills that this was an over-estimate; his purchases of goods for the two years mentioned amounting to only a little over $700. From this, as he swears, his income was about $60 or $70 a year; and it is difficult to see how it could be more. In addition he sold $200 or $300 worth of fertilizers as agent for a phosphate company, which is included in the figures given to the mercantile appraisers; and the value of the stock in the store at the time the petition was filed would not exceed $200.

"In contrast to this it is shown that the respondent had two farms, aggregating 240 acres, which he managed himself, employing but one man regularly besides his son; others being called in as occasion required. From this land he raised wheat, oats, corn, and hay, besides having a number of cows and selling milk; the total farm products being valued at from $1,000 to $1,200, out of which he realized about $600, and the sales of milk alone amounting to some $200 to $250. That it was upon the farm that he depended for a livelihood is evident; what is called his store being the merest excuse for one, and yielding him but a pittance. This, moreover, he gave over to the care of his wife during the seasons of the year when the farm demanded attention; and to the latter he devoted his time, participating directly in the farmwork, notwithstanding his 70 odd years. Under the

circumstances, there can be no question, as already stated, that this was his paramount, as it was his principal, occupation, both as regards the time given to it and its importance to himself and his family. He was thus, within the meaning of the act, chiefly engaged in farming and the tillage of the soil, and so not liable to be put into bankruptcy.

"The petition is therefore dismissed, at the cost of the petitioning creditor."

Question 782: A owns a farm and also operates a small country general store. Creditors file a petition in bankruptcy against him. What determines whether or not he is a farmer?

§ 814. (Bankruptcy, Sec. 24.) Occupation considered as of what date.

(Note: The occupation of wage-earner or farmer which exempts one from involuntary proceedings is determined as of the time when the act of bankruptcy is committed, not as of the time the petition is filed. Otherwise a merchant becoming insolvent and committing an act of bankruptcy could defeat the proceedings by changing his occupation.)

(b) Of Corporations.

8815. (Bankruptcy, Sec. 25.) In general. (1) History of this section.

(2) Corporations which can file voluntary petitions. (3) Corporations which are subject to involuntary bankruptcy.

(1) History of this Section.

(Note: The act of 1898, as originally drawn did not permit voluntary proceedings by corporations, and involuntary petitions could be filed against corporations engaged principally in manufacturing, trading, printing, publishing, or mercantile pursuits. By amendment of 1903, mining corporations were added. There were many differences of opinion as to whether certain kinds of corporations came within the meaning of these words, and many corporations were excluded, being non-trading corporations. By

amendment of 1910, all corporations were included, except certain ones, and voluntary bankruptcy was permitted.)

(2) Corporations which can File Voluntary Petitions.

(Note: Any corporation, commercial or non-commercial, for profit or not for profit, may file a voluntary proceeding, unless it is a municipal, railroad, insurance or banking corporation.)

(3) Corporations which are Subject to Involuntary Petitions.

(Note: To be involuntary bankrupts, corporations must be moneyed, business or commercial, and must not be municipal, railroad, insurance or banking corporations.)

Case 783. Vallely v. Northern Fire Ins. Co., 254 U. S. 348.

Facts: The Northern Fire and Marine Insurance Company was adjudged an involuntary bankrupt May 3, 1917, upon petition of its creditors. The petition set forth that the company was a North Dakota corporation, and that it had been in the business of insuring property against loss by fire, hail, etc. The company filed no contest and was duly adjudicated a bankrupt in the bankruptcy court. No appeal was then taken. The estate of the bankrupt was then put in process of administration, a trustee being elected, claims presented, assets collected, expenses incurred, etc. Afterwards and on December 18, 1917, the insurance company filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to vacate the adjudication as null and void, and dismiss the proceedings upon the ground that it appeared that the company was an insurance corporation and therefore could not be adjudged a bankrupt. The motion was sustained. The trustee filed a certificate to the Circuit Court of Appeals to revise this order and the Circuit Court of Appeals certifies to the United States Supreme Court certain questions the third of which reads as follows:

"Where an insurance corporation adjudged bankrupt in an involuntary proceeding after the passage of the