Good v. Kane
| Decision Date | 07 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | 133. |
| Citation | 211 F. 956 |
| Parties | GOOD v. KANE. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Syllabus by the Court.
On a hearing upon an order on the bankrupt to show cause why he should not be required to turn over assets to the trustee his testimony on his general examination at the first meeting of his creditors is admissible against him, even though the referee at that examination erroneously denied the bankrupt the right to have his counsel cross-examine him and give him an opportunity in that way to explain and to correct the testimony on his examination.
Decisions of disputed questions of fact on conflicting evidence are not reviewable upon a petition to revise.
But the question of law whether or not there was any substantial evidence to sustain a decision or order may be considered or determined by the appellate court upon such a petition.
When property of a bankrupt estate is traced to the possession of one on the eve of his bankruptcy, it is presumed to remain in his possession or under his control until he satisfactorily accounts to the court of bankruptcy for its disposition or disappearance, and the burden is on him so to account.
He cannot escape an order for its surrender by a mere denial under oath that he has the property or its proceeds in his possession or under his control, or that they are the property of the bankrupt estate.
C. W Rutledge, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.
Lee W Grant, of St. Louis, Mo., and W. H. Close, for respondent.
Before SANBORN and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and POPE, District Judge.
Isadore Good, a bankrupt, challenges, by a petition to revise, an order of the referee which was affirmed by the District Court, that he turn over to the trustee $2,000 which they found was property of his bankrupt estate and in his possession. He founds his challenge on the grounds: (1) That the referee and the court admitted in evidence against him on the hearing for the order his testimony on his general examination at the first meeting of creditors, at which it was alleged that he was denied the right to be cross-examined by his counsel or to explain and correct his testimony; and (2) that there was no legal evidence that the bankrupt had in his possession or under his control $2,000 of the property of the bankrupt estate at the time the order was made. The answer to the petition denies that the referee refused to permit the counsel for the bankrupt to cross-examine him on his general examination at the meeting of creditors; but even if the referee had made such a denial, it would not have disqualified his testimony on that examination as evidence against him, although it would have undoubtedly much weakened its force. A bankrupt without question has the right on his general examination at the first meeting of the creditors, or at any other examination, to the attendance and services of counsel to object to inadmissible evidence and examination, to except to erroneous rulings and to so cross-examine the bankrupt as to elicit the whole truth regarding the subjects of the examination by means of the bankrupt's correction of mistakes in and explanations of his earlier testimony. A timid, thoughtless, or ignorant debtor may not be led on by a quick, trained examiner to make mistaken admissions and to tell half truths and then denied the opportunity to correct or explain his testimony in answer to questions by his own counsel. However, there was no error in the admission of his general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ruskay
...the report of a master was wholly unsupported by testimony is one of law and so reviewable on a petition to revise. And in Good v. Kane, 211 F. 956, 128 C. C. A. 454, the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Eighth Circuit held that on a petition to revise it is a question of law whether or not ......
-
Price v. Spokane Silver & Lead Co.
...is contrary to law, or clearly erroneous. In re Cole, 1 Cir., 144 F. 392, 393; Shea v. Lewis, 8 Cir., 206 F. 877, 881; Good v. Kane, 8 Cir., 211 F. 956, 958; Reiss v. Reardon, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 200, 202; Brockett v. Winkle Terra Cotta Co., 8 Cir., 81 F. 2d 949, 952; O'Connor v. Mills, 8 Cir.,......
-
Kimm v. Cox
...are reviewable only to ascertain "whether or not there was any substantial evidence" to sustain the ruling of the trial court. Good v. Kane, 211 F. 956, 958, this Court. Where the bankruptcy court acts in a matter of appointment or removal of trustee, "there must be a clear showing of abuse......
-
Henkin v. Fousek
...the referee and District Judge so justified, but, if the case had been submitted to us, we would have found the same way. Good v. Kane, 128 C.C.A. 454, 211 F. 956; Schweer v. Brown, 64 C.C.A. 574, 130 F. Seigel v. Cartel, 90 C.C.A. 512, 164 F. 691; In re Friedman (D.C.) 153 F. 939. In the s......