Hill v. Smith
260 U.S. 592 (1923)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hill v. Smith, 260 U.S. 592 (1923)

Hill v. Smith

No. 164

Argued January 3, 1923

Decided January 15, 1923

260 U.S. 592

Syllabus

1. A federal question which was treated as open, and decided, by the state supreme court, will be reviewed here without inquiring whether its federal character was adequately called to the attention of the state trial court. P. 260 U. S. 594.

2. A question of burden of proof may amount to a federal question when intimately involving substantive rights under a federal statute. P. 260 U. S. 594.

Page 260 U. S. 593

3. The burden of proof is one thing, and the necessity of producing evidence to meet that already produced another. P. 260 U. S. 594.

4. A creditor who would avoid the effect of a discharge under the Bankruptcy Act upon the ground that the debt was not scheduled, with his name, must prove himself within that exception, and the debtor who would excuse the omission of the creditor's name upon the ground that the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings must prove himself within that exception to the exception. P. 260 U. S. 594.

232 Mass. 188 affirmed.

Certiorari to a judgment of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, entered on a finding for the plaintiff made subject to exceptions, which were overruled by the Supreme Judicial Court, in an action on a judgment.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.