Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
RICHARDSON v. GRILL, 1934 — 68 F.2d 737 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
RICHARDSON v. GRILL
68 F.2d 737·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
RICHARDSON v. GRILL.
No. 6934.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 7, 1934.
W. F. Finch, of West Palm Beach, Fla., for appellant.
A. Melrose Lamar, of West Palm Beach, Fla., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and HUTCH-ESON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Tbe bankrupt Richardson first claimed about $1,300, due him for personal labor and services, as exempt under a Florida statute, C. G. L. § 5793. Tbe court allowed tbe claim, but held that such part of the amount thereof as had been earned subsequent to the date of adjudication in bankruptcy should bo deducted. Confronted with this situation, the bankrupt by an amended petition abandoned his claim under the statute, and instead prayed to be allowed as the head of a family an exemption of $1,000; under article 10; § 1, of the Florida Constitution. The court allowed the amendment and awarded to the bankrupt $1,-000, which he received in full satisfaction. The bankrupt now appeals and seeks to recover the difference of $300' by reasserting bis right under tbe statute. Clearly, be is es-topped to do this. His original claim of exemption, having been voluntarily withdrawn and supplanted by an amendment, was no longer before the trial court, and it cannot after settlement of the claim as amended be renewed in this court.
The appeal is dismissed.