IN RE COLLIER

• Decision Date: 09 February 1925
• Docket Number: No. 2760.,2760.
• Citation: 4 F.2d 542
• Parties: In re COLLIER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

4 F.2d 542 (1925)

In re COLLIER.

No. 2760.

District Court, S. D. Florida.

February 9, 1925.

H. S. Hampton and W. L. Pencke, both of Tampa, Fla., for objecting creditor.

H. M. Hampton, of Ocala, Fla., for bankrupt.

CALL, District Judge.

This cause comes on for a hearing on the motion of the bankrupt to be discharged. The record in this matter shows the following facts to exist:

The bankrupt filed his petition to be discharged on August 27, 1924. On September 18, 1924, a creditor filed two specifications of objection to such discharge: (1) That the bankrupt knowingly and fraudulently concealed certain property; and (2) that with intent to conceal his true financial condition he failed to keep books of account and records. On October 1, 1924, the bankrupt filed a paper, calling it an answer, in which as to the first specification he claims that the lands described in the specification had been given his son some years before, and the son took possession, cleared the lands, and remained in open, notorious possession of same, but no conveyance passed until February, 1923; that the claim of the son to be the owner of the lands was openly and publicly known. The paper then sets up certain facts as to the debt of objecting creditor, which is not necessary to set out in the decision of the question involved at this hearing.

As to the second specification, the bankrupt alleged that he was a farmer, not engaged in any other business, and that with the exception of one or two small items the indebtedness due by him arose from indorsements upon notes made by others. On October 1, 1924, an order was made by the court referring the matter of discharge and specifications of objection to the referee as a special master, to take testimony and report the same to the court for action. On October 8, 1924, the objecting creditor filed a motion to dismiss the answer. No further steps seem to have been taken until December 8, 1924, when a motion was made before the master to report the matter to the court that no testimony had been taken before him by the objecting creditor.

I find among the papers a certificate of the referee that no testimony had been taken; this paper is dated December 8, 1924, but has not been filed in the clerk's office. It seems that some correspondence passed between the master and the attorney for the objecting creditor concerning reporting the case back to the court for a decision on the motion to dismiss the answer, but no testimony was...