In re Crenshaw
| Decision Date | 05 July 1899 |
| Citation | 95 F. 632 |
| Parties | In re CRENSHAW. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Prince & Prince and J. W. McAlpine, for opposing creditors.
In this case specifications are filed by several creditors objecting to the discharge of the bankrupt. The specifications are, in substance-- First, that the bankrupt willfully made a false oath relating to said proceeding in bankruptcy when he stated on oath that he had no assets of any kind,-- the falsity of the oath being in that he had a stock of goods which was his property, and which should have been scheduled by him as an asset which stock of goods he theretofore attempted to transfer to his wife; and, second, that in his schedule of creditors the bankrupt willfully made a false oath when he scheduled the debt due Finlay, Dicks & Co. to be by note of only $82.34 whereas it should have been by two notes,-- one for $82.14 and one for $82.58.
The bankrupt law provides that the application for a discharge and such proofs and pleas as may be made in opposition thereto, shall be heard, and the merits of the application investigated, and the applicant shall be discharged unless he has (1) committed an offense punishable by imprisonment as provided in the law; or (2) with fraudulent intent to conceal his true financial condition, and in contemplation of bankruptcy, destroyed, concealed, or failed to keep books of account or records from which his true condition might be ascertained. And the law provides that a person shall be imprisoned upon conviction, among other offenses, of making a false oath or account in, or in relation to, any proceeding in bankruptcy. The charge here, as we have seen, is that the bankrupt made false oaths in rendering his schedules. The evidence shows that the transfer by the bankrupt to his wife was made four months and one week before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, and there is no evidence of any special concealment about it. While the transfer may have been fraudulent and void in law, and by proper proceedings may have been so declared, and the property transferred secured and subjected by the creditors, or by a trustee for their benefit, to the payment of the bankrupt's debts yet this does not constitute his oath to the statement that he had no assets a false oath. So far as he was concerned, the transfer to his wife was valid and binding, and he could not impeach it. The property was hers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Arcuri
...for a "mere misstatement of fact"; there "must be willful misstatement of fact under oath . . . in short, actual fraud"); In re Crenshaw, 95 F. 632, 633 (S.D.Ala.1899). The debtor's fraudulent intent must be proven to be "actual and not constructive," In re Montgomery, 86 B.R. at 957; In re......
-
In re Baker
...unusual, the natural inference is that the omission to list a liability in schedules came about through mistake or oversight. In re Crenshaw, D.C.Ala., 95 F. 632. See, also, In re Applebaum, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 685; Sharcoff v. Schieffelin & Co., 2 Cir., 70 F.2d See also In re Barry, D.C., 52 F......
-
In re Simon
...unusual, the natural inference is that the omission to list a liability in schedules came about through mistake or oversight. In re Crenshaw, D.C.Ala., 95 F. 632. See, also, In re Applebaum, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 685; Sharcoff v. Schieffelin & Co., 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 725.' See also In re Barry, D.C.......
-
In re Bryant
...the watch and chain, desk, and firm interest in his schedule, and swearing to same as being full and complete. In the case of In re Crenshaw (D.C.) 95 F. 632, it held that where the bankrupt more than four months before the commencement of proceedings transferred a stock of goods to his wif......