Mitchell v. Hampel, 276 U.S. 299 (1928)

Text

---

U.S. Supreme Court MITCHELL v. HAMPEL, 276 U.S. 299 (1928)

[Page 276 U.S. 299, 303]

debtor also. Certainly we find no prohibition in the bankruptcy law. Myers v. International Trust Co., 273 U.S. 380, 47 S. Ct. 372. By making a separate contract although in the same instrument he calls the separate liability into being, as presumably he intends to and as he has a right to do. Robinson v. Seaboard National Bank of New York (C. C. A.) 247 F. 667, 668, 669, 10 A. L. R. 842; Id. (C. C. A.), 247 F. 1007, 10 A. L. R. 842. The intent and transaction are not illegal in Texas. Their specific effect depends on the Bankruptcy Act.

We have dealt with the only question which induced the granting of the writ. It does not appear to us necessary to go into further details.

Decree reversed.

---