Hellman v. Goldstone
| Decision Date | 14 May 1908 |
| Docket Number | 4. |
| Citation | 161 F. 913 |
| Parties | HELLMAN v. GOLDSTONE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
David E. Goldfarb, for appellant.
Hays & Hirshfield and Horace Stern, for appellee.
Before DALLAS, GRAY, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges
This is a petition of Henry Hellman to review an order in bankruptcy made by the District Court of New Jersey. On June 2, 1904, one Goldstone recovered a judgment against Hellman in a municipal court, which by the filing of a transcript thereof in the Supreme Court of New York on June 3, 1904, became a judgment therein. On June 28, 1904, Hellman was adjudged bankrupt in the court below, and on October 24, 1904, obtained from said court his discharge. On October 12, 1906, he petitioned the Supreme Court of New York to cancel Goldstone's judgment by reason of his having obtained such discharge in bankruptcy. On October 30, 1906, that court, after hearing, denied the defendant's motion to cancel the judgment. Of such order Hellman sought no review, but on February 19, 1907, petitioned the court below to enjoin Goldstone from proceeding to enforce the judgment. This the District Court, by its order of April 3, 1907, declined to do, and to review its order dismissing such proceeding Hellman petitioned this court.
We are of opinion the court below was right. The question whether a judgment against one who is thereafter adjudged bankrupt is thereby discharged is properly raised by pleading the discharge in a proceeding to enforce the judgment.
In re Wright, 2 Ben. 509, Fed. Cas. No. 18,065. Presumably the court in which such discharge is thus pleaded will accord it due legal effect, and if it does not the bankrupt's remedy lies in a review of such action by the proper appellate tribunal, or ultimately in the federal court for denial to him of a right under a law of the United States. Dimock v. Revere Copper Company, 117 U.S. 565, 6 Sup.Ct. 855, 29 L.Ed. 994.
The petition in the present case is therefore dismissed, at petitioner's cost.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Local Loan Co v. Hunt
...a discharge in bankruptcy is a matter to be determined by any court in which the discharge may be pleaded. See, for example, Hellman v. Goldstone (C.C.A.) 161 F. 913; In re Marshall Paper Co. (C.C.A.) 102 F. 872, 874; In re Weisberg (D.C.) 253 F. 833, 835; In re Havens (C.C.A.) 272 F. 975. ......
-
In re Wright, Bankruptcy No. 79-03567
...68 F.2d 902 (2d Cir. 1934); Teubert v. Kessler, 296 F. 472 (3rd Cir. 1924); In re Havens, 272 F. 975 (2d Cir. 1921); Hellman v. Goldstone, 161 F. 913 (3rd Cir. 1908); In re Madder Madden, 257 F. 581 (D.N.J.1919); In re Weisberg, 253 F. 833 (E.D.Mich.1918); In re Boardway, 248 F. 364 (N.D.N.......
-
In re Natow Bros.
... ... must be left to the decision of the court in which the ... action is pending. In re Rosenthal (D.C.) 108 F ... 368; Hellman v. Goldstone, 161 F. 913, 88 C.C.A ... 604; In re Lockwood (D.C.) 240 F. 161.' ... It is ... undoubtedly true that under certain ... ...
-
In re Weisberg
...discharge must be left to the decision of the court in which the action is pending. In re Rosenthal (D.C.) 108 F. 368; Hellman v. Goldstone, 161 F. 913, 88 C.C.A. 604; In re Lockwood (D.C.) 240 F. The power of the bankruptcy court to protect a bankrupt against claims in another court is lim......