147 F.2d 120 (2nd Cir. 1945), 200, Gerber v. Fruchter

Docket Nº:200.
Citation:147 F.2d 120
Party Name:GERBER v. FRUCHTER.
Case Date:January 12, 1945
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 120

147 F.2d 120 (2nd Cir. 1945)

GERBER

v.

FRUCHTER.

No. 200.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 12, 1945

Page 121

David Haar, of New York City, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Circuit Judge.

Alton Fruchter, the bankrupt, filed his voluntary petition on February 10, 1939, and was granted a discharge on April 28 of that year. On March 23, 1943, Irving Gerber moved in the District Court for an order appointing a trustee to administer newly discovered assets of the bankrupt, vacating the discharge because of the bankrupt's fraudulent concealment of assets, and punishing of the bankrupt by fine for contempt of court in concealing his assets and swearing falsely in his petition. A notice of motion was served on the bankrupt at his office in Philadelphia, Pa., to which city he had removed. The District Court overruled the bankrupt's objections to its jurisdiction and referred the issues for a hearing before a special master. In re Fruchter, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 1. The special master found that on January 20, 1927, Honeywell Holding Corporation recovered a judgment against the bankrupt in the sum of $367.79; that in his schedule of creditors the bankrupt listed that company as 'Honeywell Holding Corporation recovered a judgment against the bankrupt in the sum of $367.79; that in his schedule of creditors the bankrupt listed that company as 'Honeywell Folding Corporation'; that Honeywell Holding Corporation never filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceeding; that it never received formal notice of these proceedings; and that on December 8, 1941, the judgment in question was assigned to Irving Gerber for a consideration of $50.

Page 122

He further found that Fruchter was guilty of fraud on the r bankruptcy court, as evidenced by the fact that he verified his schedules, which stated that he had no deposit in any bank and no books or records, while at the time he actually had $327.10 in the Manhattan Savings Bank, and approximately $320 in the Bowery Savings Bank.

Thereafter the District Court confirmed the special master's report, denied the vacation of the discharge, presumably because application was not made within a year, Bankruptcy Act, § 15, 11 U.S.C.A. § 33, reopened the proceedings for the administration of the moneys which the bankrupt failed to turn over, and deferred any further action looking toward punishing Fruchter for his fraud. Fruchter brings this appeal from both orders of the District Court. He challenges the jurisdiction of the court and the status of the petitioner in the proceedings. We agree with his...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP