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

Rau v. Bosworth, Receiver

• 1900 • 179 U.S. 443 • Fuller Court
In the 1900 case of Rau v. Bosworth, Receiver, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and debt repayment. The plaintiff, Rau, had sold land to another party who subsequently defaulted on their mortgage payments. The defendant in this case was appointed as receiver for the defaulting party's assets by a lower court during bankruptcy proceedings. However, before these proceedings were completed and without knowledge of them taking place, Rau repossessed his land due to...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: 1900
Docket: 13
179 U.S. 443
21 S. Ct. 194
45 L. Ed. 268
1900 U.S. LEXIS 1883
Argued: Oct 24, 1999

Rau v. Bosworth, Receiver

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1900 case of Rau v. Bosworth, Receiver, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and debt repayment. The plaintiff, Rau, had sold land to another party who subsequently defaulted on their mortgage payments. The defendant in this case was appointed as receiver for the defaulting party's assets by a lower court during bankruptcy proceedings. However, before these proceedings were completed and without knowledge of them taking place, Rau repossessed his land due to non-payment from his buyer under terms agreed upon at sale time. The central issue revolved around whether or not Rau could legally reclaim ownership of his property while it was under receivership (i.e., being managed by someone else during bankruptcy). In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since he did not know about the receivership when he reclaimed possession of his property - an action which would have been legal otherwise - he should be allowed to keep it despite subsequent events. This ruling established important precedent regarding how courts handle cases where multiple parties claim rights over same asset amidst financial insolvency situations; essentially affirming that ignorance can sometimes serve as a legitimate defense against claims made after-the-fact.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rau v. Bosworth, Receiver, argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation and application of bankruptcy law. The dissent contended that a debtor's property should not be distributed among creditors until after it has been determined whether or not the debtor is bankrupt. It was also asserted that if a creditor receives payment from an insolvent debtor before bankruptcy proceedings begin, this does not constitute preferential treatment under bankruptcy laws unless it can be proven that both parties were aware of the impending insolvency at the time of transaction. This view contradicts with majority’s decision which held such transactions as voidable preferences regardless of knowledge about insolvency status during transaction time.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Dec 17, 1900
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