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

Miller v. Hatfield, Trustee In Farmer Debtor Bankruptcy, Et Al.

• 1939 • 309 U.S. 1 • Hughes Court
In the case of Miller v. Hatfield, Trustee in Farmer Debtor Bankruptcy, et al., 1939, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bankruptcy proceedings and debt repayment. The appellant was a farmer who had filed for bankruptcy under Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act which allowed farmers to reorganize their debts while keeping possession of their property. However, his creditors challenged this filing on grounds that he did not qualify as a 'farmer' within the meaning of Section 75(s)....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 Hughes Court
Term: 1939
Docket: 237
309 U.S. 1
60 S. Ct. 374
84 L. Ed. 535
1940 U.S. LEXIS 1183
Argued: Jan 05, 1940

Miller v. Hatfield, Trustee In Farmer Debtor Bankruptcy, Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Miller v. Hatfield, Trustee in Farmer Debtor Bankruptcy, et al., 1939, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bankruptcy proceedings and debt repayment. The appellant was a farmer who had filed for bankruptcy under Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act which allowed farmers to reorganize their debts while keeping possession of their property. However, his creditors challenged this filing on grounds that he did not qualify as a 'farmer' within the meaning of Section 75(s). They argued that since he leased part of his land to others for farming purposes and worked as an insurance agent during winter months when farming activities were minimal or non-existent; therefore he should be considered more like an ordinary debtor rather than a farmer-debtor entitled to special protection under section 75(s). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miller stating that despite leasing out some land and working another job during off-seasons, these factors did not disqualify him from being classified as a 'farmer'. Therefore it upheld his right to file for bankruptcy under section 75(s) thereby allowing him to retain possession over his farm while restructuring his debts.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Miller v. Hatfield, Trustee in Farmer Debtor Bankruptcy, et al., argued that the majority's decision to allow a farmer debtor to reclaim his property after bankruptcy proceedings was not consistent with the intent of Congress when it enacted the Frazier-Lemke Act. The dissenting justices believed that this law was designed to give relief only to those farmers who were willing and able to pay their debts over time under reasonable conditions. They contended that allowing a debtor who had been adjudged bankrupt and whose assets had been distributed among creditors, as per court order, would undermine these objectives by encouraging irresponsible borrowing and discouraging responsible lending practices. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential abuse of such leniency towards debtors at the expense of creditors' rights.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Jan 15, 1940
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