In re Andrews, 18168-K.

Decision Date14 November 1930
Docket NumberNo. 18168-K.,18168-K.
Citation47 F.2d 949
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
PartiesIn re ANDREWS.

Francis St. J. Fox, of San Francisco, Cal., for bankrupt.

R. E. Hewitt and F. W. Lake, both of Oakland, Cal., for objecting creditor.

KERRIGAN, District Judge.

The bankrupt has petitioned for his discharge. Vigo Lambrecht, a creditor, has filed specifications of objection to the discharge; the sole ground of objection being that the single debt scheduled and proved in the bankruptcy proceedings is not a dischargeable debt under the second clause of section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 35). The bankrupt has made various objections relative to the appearance of the creditor and the time and form of the specification filed. I shall not, however, pass upon these questions as it is apparent that the bankrupt is entitled to his discharge. No specification is made objecting to the discharge upon any ground set forth in section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 32), which is the section governing the right to discharge, as distinguished from the effect of a discharge, covered by section 17. The question as to whether the discharge of the bankrupt has discharged the particular debt referred to is to be determined at the time and in the proceeding, if any, when the creditor seeks to enforce his judgment debt despite the discharge. In re McCarty (D. C.) 111 F. 151; Teubert v. Kessler (C. C. A.) 296 F. 472; In re Marshall Paper Co. (C. C. A.) 102 F. 872.

The petition for discharge is granted.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • First Nat. Bank v. Haymes
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • April 1, 1966
    ...court. In re Bernard, 2 Cir., 280 F. 715; Teubert v. Kessler, 3 Cir., 296 F. 472; In re Kolsrud, D.C.Minn., 34 F.2d 831; In re Andrews, D.C.Cal., 47 F.2d 949; In re Millkofsky, D.C.N.Y., 17 F.Supp. 127; In re Sutton, D.C.N.Y., 19 F.Supp. 892.' In re Lowe, supra. (Emphasis Collier's Bankrupt......
  • In re Scandiffio
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • October 17, 1945
    ...re Cosmopolitan Bond & Mortgage Co., 7 Cir., 1935, 79 F.2d 547, certiorari denied 296 U.S. 657, 56 S.Ct. 382, 80 L.Ed. 468; In re Andrews, D.C.Cal. 1930, 47 F.2d 949; In re Millkofsky, D.C. N.Y.1936, 17 F.Supp. 127; In re Sutton, D.C.N.Y.1937, 19 F.Supp. 892; In re Lowe, D.C.Ky.1941, 36 F.S......
  • In re Setzler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 20, 1947
    ...submitted for judgment." In re Munsie, 2 Cir., 1929, 33 F.2d 79, 80; In re Devereaux, 2 Cir., 1935, 76 F.2d 522, 523; In re Andrews, D.C.Cal., 1930, 47 F.2d 949, 950. In the Hunt case, however, after receiving a discharge the bankrupt filed an ancillary bill of complaint in the bankruptcy c......
  • In re Lowe, 3764.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • January 30, 1941
    ...court. In re Bernard, 2 Cir., 280 F. 715; Teubert v. Kessler, 3 Cir., 296 F. 472; In re Kolsrud, D.C.Minn, 34 F.2d 831; In re Andrews, D.C.Cal., 47 F.2d 949; In re Millkofsky, D.C.N.Y., 17 F.Supp. 127; In re Sutton, D.C.N.Y., 19 F.Supp. The court is therefore of the opinion that the referee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT