U.S. Supreme Court FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. OF BRIDGEPORT, CONN. v. BEACH, 301 U.S. 435 (1937)

[Page 301 U.S. 435, 441]

content that may vary with the setting. Cf. Surace v. Danna, 248 N.Y. 18, 21, 161 N.E. 315; Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425, 38 S.Ct. 158, L.R.A.1918D, 254; International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, , 47 S.Ct. 19. In the setting of this enterprise, the totality of its circumstances, the roots of the respondent's income go down into the soil.

4. Cases in other courts relied upon by the petitioner as excluding the respondent from the category of farmers are consistent for the most part with the ruling now made when the opinions are read with due relation to the facts.

Either the debtor posing as a farmer was engaged at the same time in some other line of business or the plots in cultivation were too small to make a farm. Swift v. Mobley (C.C.A.) 28 F.(2d) 610; In re Spengler (D.C.) 238 F. 862; In re McMurray (D.C.) 8 F.Supp. 449; In re Weis (D.C.) 10 F. Supp. 227.

The judgment is affirmed.