Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Hoyt v. Horne

• 1891 • 145 U.S. 302 • Fuller Court
In the 1891 case Hoyt v. Horne, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Mrs. Hoyt, was the widow of Mr. Horne who had left his entire estate to her upon his death without any specific bequests or legacies mentioned in his will except for debts owed by him at the time of his death which were to be paid out from this estate before distribution to Mrs.Hoyt as per District law then applicable on such matters. However,...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1891
Docket: 336
145 U.S. 302
12 S. Ct. 922
36 L. Ed. 713
1892 U.S. LEXIS 2141
Argued: Apr 26, 1892

Hoyt v. Horne

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1891 case Hoyt v. Horne, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Mrs. Hoyt, was the widow of Mr. Horne who had left his entire estate to her upon his death without any specific bequests or legacies mentioned in his will except for debts owed by him at the time of his death which were to be paid out from this estate before distribution to Mrs.Hoyt as per District law then applicable on such matters. However, after Mr.Horne's death it was discovered that he had made several loans during his lifetime secured by deeds of trust on real estate properties owned by him but these transactions weren't recorded until after Mr.Horne's demise leading to claims against these properties being filed posthumously. The court ruled that since these deeds were not properly recorded while Mr.Horne was alive they could not affect Mrs.Hoyt’s right as an heir under intestacy rules nor did they create any valid liens against her inherited property because she took possession immediately upon her husband’s death thus making all subsequent recordings ineffective against her claim.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hoyt v. Horne argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. The dissent contended that a creditor should not be allowed to seize property from a debtor who had already declared bankruptcy, especially when other creditors were also owed money by the same debtor. This would unfairly privilege one creditor over others and violate the principle of equal treatment for all creditors in bankruptcy cases. Furthermore, it was pointed out that allowing such seizures could potentially encourage fraudulent behavior by debtors seeking to favor certain creditors over others. Therefore, according to this view, once a debtor has filed for bankruptcy protection, all their assets should be considered part of their estate and distributed among their creditors under supervision of court-appointed trustees or receivers.

Opinion written by Justice HBBrown
Decided: May 16, 1892
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms