In re Finn
| Decision Date | 10 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 7577.,7577. |
| Citation | 119 F.2d 656 |
| Parties | In re FINN. Appeal of MORRIS PLAN INDUSTRIAL BANK OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Henry W. Parker, of New York City, for appellant.
Russell C. MacFall, of Ridgewood, N. J., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, CLARK, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.
The bankrupt, Roy George Finn, is alleged by the appellant, The Morris Plan Industrial Bank of New York, to have made certain material false statements to it in connection with obtaining a loan for $675 and the appellant contends that for this reason the bankrupt is not entitled to his discharge, citing the provisions of Section 14, sub. c(3), of the Bankruptcy Act as amended, 52 Stat. 850, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c(3). The appellant filed objections with the referee who overruled them and granted the discharge. Upon petition for review the District Court affirmed the referee's order. The appeal at bar followed.
The appellant contends that the bankrupt stated in his loan application to it that he was not making installment payments. In answer to the question upon the application, , the bankrupt wrote the word "None". The information thus furnished by the bankrupt was certainly one of the considerations which caused the appellant to grant the loan and the answer given by him was not true. He had become indebted to the Paterson Wimsett System for a loan of $300 upon which he was obligated to make monthly installment payments. The Paterson Wimsett System loan had been made to the bankrupt only a few weeks prior to the time of his application to the appellant for a loan.
The referee found as a fact that the answer, "None", given by the bankrupt was not given with the intention of deceiving the appellant; that the appellant must have known that the answer was false because the bankrupt was already indebted to it for a prior loan at the time the application was executed and that the appellant may have made the loan because the bankrupt had a ". . long record of perfect payments."
Section 14, sub. c, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c, expressly provides, "* * * That if, upon the hearing of an objection to a discharge, the objector shall show to the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the bankrupt has committed any of the acts which, under this subdivision c, would prevent his discharge in bankruptcy, then the burden of proving that he has not committed any of such acts shall be upon the bankrupt."
The burden was upon the bankrupt to prove that he had not committed any of the acts prohibited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decker, Matter of
...evidence, to the bankrupt once the objector makes out a prima facie case that the bankrupt is not entitled to a discharge. In re Finn, 119 F.2d 656, 657 (3d Cir. 1941). Accord, In re Melnick, 360 F.2d 918, 919-20 (2d Cir. 1966); Feldenstein v. Radio Distributing Co., 323 F.2d 892, 893 (6th ......
-
In re Barbato
...statement was made, as we said in an earlier case, "carelessly and with reckless indifference" to the actual facts. In re Finn, 3d Cir. 1941, 119 F.2d 656, 658. Accord, Morimura, Arai & Co. v. Taback, 1929, 279 U.S. 24, 49 S.Ct. 212, 73 L.Ed. 586; Woolen Corp. of America v. Gitnig, 3d Cir. ......
- United States v. Conti, 3640.
-
In re Curtiss
...upon the bankrupt the ultimate burden of proving that he had not committed any one or more of the acts condemned in the statute. In re Finn, 3 Cir., 119 F.2d 656; In re Smatlak, supra; Third National Bank v. Schatten, 6 Cir., 81 F.2d 538; In re Holzman, supra. It is obvious that the referee......