In re Gift

• Decision Date: 23 April 1904
• Docket Number: 340.
• Parties: In re GIFT.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

130 F. 230

In re GIFT.

No. 340.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

April 23, 1904

Charles P. Ulrich, for excepting creditors.

Charles M. Clement, for bankrupt.

ARCHBALD District Judge.

On February 26, 1904, within the time limited by the law, the First National Bank of Beaver Springs, a creditor of the bankrupt, filed the following objection to his discharge:

'That at or about the time said bankrupt was preparing and arranging to file his petition in bankruptcy, he purchased household goods worth about $200, and transferred said goods to his wife as a gift, thereby removing or concealing property with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors, and that said household goods thus given by said bankrupt to his wife were not scheduled by him as assets of his estate.' The paper was signed in the name of the bank by the president, but was not verified, and exception has been taken to it on that ground. It is also claimed that it does not state with sufficient definiteness the ground of objection to the discharge, nor bring it within the law. Upon this the creditor moves to amend by filing properly verified specifications charging, in substance:

'That on or about June 26, 1903, the bankrupt purchased of certain parties--naming them-- goods and merchandise of the value of $115.11, to wit, 75 yards of ingrain carpet; 30 yards of Brussells carpet; six Brussells rugs; a dozen and a half of window shades; four large and three smaller teaspoons, and a dozen tablespoons, all of Rogers' silverware; a silver butter knife and a silver sugar shell; a clock; and 25 yards of stair carpet. That these goods were directed by the bankrupt to be shipped to Northumberland, Pa., where they were received by him, although his residence at the time was elsewhere, and were given by him to his present wife, to whom he had not yet been married, but was about to be, knowing at the time that he was insolvent, and being about to go into bankruptcy; thus knowingly and fraudulently transferring the said goods with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors; the said goods having since that time been in the joint control, use, and enjoyment of the bankrupt and his wife, and not having been included in the schedule of his assets. Also that within four months of filing his petition he had similarly purchased of other parties who are named household furniture, unspecified, of the value of $110.88, which he also gave to his wife, at or about the same time, with similar fraudulent purpose.'

The question is whether this amendment should be allowed.

All pleadings setting up matters of fact are required by the bankruptcy act to be verified. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541,Sec 18c, 30 Stat. 551 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3429). And objections to a discharge, according to the better opinion, being of that nature, should be made under oath (Collier's Bankruptcy, 161; Brandenburg's Bankruptcy, Sec. 348; In re Brown, 7 Am.Bankr.R. 252, 112 F. 49; In re Baerncopf, 9 Am.Bankr.R. 133, 117 F. 975; In re Glass, 9 Am.Bankr.R. 391, 119 F. 509), although, as pointed out in In...