Facts
The case concerns a certificate of loss that the Debt Collection Office of Beromünster had issued on May 6, 1933 in debt collection proceedings Nos. 191/1932 and 289/1933 against Josef W. Josef W. disputed that the Debt Collection Office of Beromünster had been geographically competent, as he had lived in Menziken AG, not in Beromünster, from 1931 to 1935.
The lower cantonal supervisory authority (President of the District Court of Sursee) granted Josef W.'s complaint and annulled the certificate of loss of May 6, 1933 as null and void. Ida F., the creditor, appealed this decision to the upper cantonal supervisory authority (Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Commission of the High Court of the Canton of Lucerne), which, however, dismissed the complaint.
By way of an appeal to the Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court, Ida F. now requested that the decision of the High Court be overturned and the validity of the certificate of loss be restored.
Considerations
The Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court states that a seizure that was not carried out at the debtor's place of residence is generally to be regarded as null and void. This is based on the fact that such a seizure affects not only the interests of the creditor and the debtor, but also those of third parties, namely any other creditors.
In the present case, however, this reason does not apply, as there were no additional claims of other creditors involved. The files show that the debtor Josef W. was aware of the seizure and that…