In re Edwards, 38069-M.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1942
• Docket Number: No. 38069-M.,38069-M.
• Citation: 73 F. Supp. 312
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: In re EDWARDS.

73 F. Supp. 312

In re EDWARDS.

No. 38069-M.

District Court, S. D. California, Central Division.

May 4, 1942.

Dudley R. Furse, of Hollywood, Cal., and Harry Ashton, of Los Angeles, Cal., for bankrupt.

Loeb & Loeb, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner Joseph M. Collins, a creditor.

McCORMICK, District Judge.

This is a review of an order of the referee which overruled objections interposed by one creditor to the bankrupt's discharge; denied the petition of the objecting creditor to exclude from the discharge obligations of bankrupt to such creditor, and which conditionally granted the bankrupt's discharge in bankruptcy.

Upon consideration of the referee's certificate on review and the entire record of this proceeding, together with the arguments and memoranda of respective counsel, the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the referee dated November 24, 1941, are and each is confirmed, and such findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee in bankruptcy are hereby adopted and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court.

Petitioner on review contends that the refusal of the bankrupt to make certain payments which he had voluntarily agreed to make under an arrangement proceeding pursuant to Section 74 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 202, being Number 29855-H now pending in this court, was, in effect, a refusal to obey a lawful order of this court, and that his attitude in that matter operates to bar bankrupt's discharge herein under Section 14, sub. c.(6) of the Bankruptcy Act, Title 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c(6).

However, from the evidence presented, the referee determined that the prior proceeding was not by way of composition but was, in effect, a voluntary offer or compromise by the bankrupt debtor to pay his creditors in the future portions of his salary as provided in the plan of arrangement.

The court upon consideration of the record should not disturb those findings of the referee. The referee held that the earlier proceedings, to-wit, 73 F.Supp. 310, were in the nature of a mere voluntary offer to the debtor's creditors with a consequent approval by this court and that such order does not fall within the meaning of said Section 14, sub. c(6).

Counsel for the objecting creditor relies upon In re Lesser, 2 Cir., 234 F. 65, and In re Gophrener, D.C., 20 F.Supp. 922, as authority that a discharge in bankruptcy should now be refused the bankrupt herein. In my opinion, these cases are inapplicable to this review. Both cited cases relate to objections to a discharge under provisions of the Bankruptcy Act other than Section 14, sub. c(6). The last named section of the Act refers to a situation wherein the bankrupt has refused to obey some personal order, such as an order for his appearance, etc., in a proceeding upon which the court in its discretion may withhold or refuse a discharge in bankruptcy until said order has been complied with by the debtor.

Petitioner further contends that since the debtor in the course of his...