Huntley v. Snider, 3170.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1936
• Docket Number: No. 3170.,3170.
• Citation: 86 F.2d 539
• Parties: HUNTLEY v. SNIDER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

86 F.2d 539 (1936)

HUNTLEY v. SNIDER.^*

No. 3170.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

November 20, 1936.

Alexander G. Gould, of Boston, Mass. (Harry Shapiro, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.

Herman Snyder, of Boston, Mass. (Samuel L. Bailen, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

MORTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by a bankrupt from an order of the District Court refusing his discharge. Various specifications of objection were filed. It will be necessary to consider only the sixth. "6. That the bankrupt herein has committed an offense punishable by imprisonment under the Bankruptcy Act section 29b, of the act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 52(b) in that he has knowingly and fraudulently concealed while a bankrupt from his trustee certain moneys and property, the exact amount and nature of which is at this time to this credtor unknown, belonging to his estate in bankruptcy."

The specifications of objection were referred to Referee Young as special master to state the facts. From his report it appears that Huntley was adjudicated bankrupt on his voluntary petition filed August 9, 1930. David W. Huntley, Inc., a corporation in which he was interested, had filed a voluntary petition on June 25, 1930. In or about February, 1929, Huntley transferred to his wife without any consideration therefor savings bank accounts and certificates of stock amounting to more than $25,000. None of this property nor any interest in it was scheduled by him or reported to his trustee or turned into his estate. The referee found "that the bankrupt intended to conceal and did conceal from his trustee in bankruptcy the assets in question and that this concealment continued until the trustee in bankruptcy sometime after his qualification as such trustee ascertained the true facts and filed in court on 20 October 1930, a petition to compromise the trustee's claim against Mrs. Huntley." He also found "that the assets so transferred remained in fact his (Huntley's) property. And that he continued to conceal the same from his trustee in bankruptcy until some months after the latter's appointment and qualification." Judge Brewster accepted these findings of fact, saying (14 F.Supp. 784, 786): "Clearly on the Referee's report it cannot be ruled that the transfers were a bona fide gift to the wife." He denied the discharge, citing In re Guilbert (D.C.) 169 F. 149; In re Graves (D.C.) 189 F. 847; and In re Schroeder (D.C.) 264 F. 862.

The specification under discussion is objected to by the appellant as too general and not sufficiently specific. It is clearly sufficient to raise the issue. If the appellant regarded it as too indefinite he should have asked for particulars. Such a question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

The referee reported that "To sustain my findings of fraudulent intent and continuing concealment of assets from the trustee, it is necessary for me to rely in part upon the fact that Mrs. Huntley paid $13,000 in equal amounts to the two trustees in bankruptcy, namely Mr. Makepeace and Mr. Hathaway,...