Federal Provision Co. v. Ershowsky, 184.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 184.,184. |
| Citation | 94 F.2d 574 |
| Parties | FEDERAL PROVISION CO., Inc., v. ERSHOWSKY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Shaine & Weinrib, of New York City (Edward C. Weinrib and Edward J. Mallin, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Stein & Stein, of New York City (Samuel Stein, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by two bankrupts from an order denying their discharge. An involuntary petition was filed against them on June 9, 1936; they presented their application for discharge in December; two creditors opposed it; the issues were referred to a referee, who reported against them; the report was confirmed and they have appealed. The specifications of one of the creditors, the First Prize Provision Company, Inc., alleged a concealment of property with intent to defraud creditors, and failure to account satisfactorily for losses and deficiency of assets. The first specification was in two parts: First, the payment of a debt of $1,000 to one Barney Ershowsky, the bankrupts' father; and, second, the sale of a motortruck and a car and concealment of the proceeds. The specifications of the other creditor, the Federal Provision Company, were also in two parts; the concealment of the proceeds of a pledge of property made on the eve of bankruptcy, and the failure to explain the loss and deficiency of assets. Although the referee appears to have supposed that only the specifications of the First Prize Provision Company were before him, his findings are applicable not only to them but to those of the Federal Provision Company; both had appeared before him and the evidence was taken upon both. Since the report was at most only advisory, when it came to the judge he was at liberty, and indeed in duty bound, to consider the evidence as a whole. From it the following conclusions might be drawn: The bankrupts had been doing a jobbing business in frozen meats; between May 14 and May 26, 1936, they bought a substantial quantity (the exact amount does not appear), which they stored in a warehouse and at once pledged for about $3,900. This money disappeared; their only explanation was that they paid it out to unspecified creditors. At about the same time — at the end of May — they sold their only truck and automobile; this money too disappeared, and their explanation is the same. Late in May or early in June they paid their father $1,000 upon a loan which he had made them in the preceding February; so far as can be seen, this had been a genuine loan and the payment, taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mayo
...evidence to explain all these matters and should have done so if he was to obtain a discharge.") See also, Federal Provision Co., Inc. v. Ershowsky, 94 F.2d 574, 575 (2d Cir.1938), noting the provision of Section 14(b) was significantly amended by Act May 27, 1926, § 6, 11 U.S.C. § 32(b), 1......
-
In re Overmyer, Bankruptcy No. 82 B 20329
...burden allocation of an objection to discharge, as enunciated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. See Federal Provision Co., Inc. v. Ershowsky, 94 F.2d 574, 575 (2d Cir.1938) (Prior to the amendment of Section 14(b) by the Act May 27, 1926, § 6, 11 U.S.C. § 32(b), the creditor had burde......
-
Girouard v. Cestaro (In re Cestaro)
...to the debtor than to the objector. See, e.g., In re Haggerty , 165 F.2d 977, 979–80 (2d Cir. 1948) ; Federal Provision Co. v. Ershowsky , 94 F.2d 574, 575, (2d Cir. 1938) ; In re Riceputo , 41 F.Supp. 926, 927–28 (E.D.N.Y. 1941). Because " § 727 imposes an extreme penalty for wrongdoing[,]......
-
In re Mohammad Asif And Uzma Shahzadi
...was the truth and his § 341 testimony was the lie. See Tr. p. 658. 93. 6 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 727.08 (15th rev. ed. 2001). FN94. Id. 95. 94 F.2d 574 (2nd Cir.1938). FN96. Id. at 575. FN97. See Adv. No. 10–7007, Pretrial Order, Doc. 44 at p. 9. FN98. In re Lee, 415 B.R. 518, 523 (Bankr.D.......
-
Burdens of Proof in Bankruptcy Court
...to the debtor than to the objector. See e.g., In re Haggerty, 165 F.2d 977, 979-80 (2d Cir. 1948); Federal Provision Co. v. Ershowsky, 94 F.2d 574, 575, (2d Cir. 1938); In re Riceputo, 41 F.Supp. 926,927-28 (E.D.N.Y. 1941). Rule 6001, Burden of Proof as to Validity Postpetition Transfer, pr......
-
11 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 4005 Burden of Proof In Objecting to Discharge
...to the debtor than to the objector. See, e.g., In re Haggerty, 165 F.2d 977, 979-80 (2d Cir. 1948); Federal Provision Co. v. Ershowsky, 94 F.2d 574, 575 (2d Cir. 1938); In re Riceputo, 41 F. Supp. 926, 927-28 (E.D.N.Y....
-
11 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 4005 Burden of Proof In Objecting to Discharge
...to the debtor than to the objector. See, e.g., In re Haggerty, 165 F.2d 977, 979-80 (2d Cir. 1948); Federal Provision Co. v. Ershowsky, 94 F.2d 574, 575 (2d Cir. 1938); In re Riceputo, 41 F. Supp. 926, 927-28 (E.D.N.Y....
-
11 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 4005 Burden of Proof In Objecting to Discharge
...to the debtor than to the objector. See, e.g., In re Haggerty, 165 F.2d 977, 979-80 (2d Cir. 1948); Federal Provision Co. v. Ershowsky, 94 F.2d 574, 575 (2d Cir. 1938); In re Riceputo, 41 F. Supp. 926, 927-28 (E.D.N.Y....