In re Ginsberg, 11380.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 11380.,11380. |
| Citation | 219 F.2d 472 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Stanley GINSBERG and Henry Ginsberg, Individually and as Copartners Now or Late Trading as Hensten Appliance Co., Bankrupts. APPEAL of Stanley GINSBERG and Henry Ginsberg. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Marshall H. Morgan, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Nathan Lavine, Philadelphia, Pa. (Miller, Adelman & Lavine, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARIS and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and LORD, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a petition to review the action of a referee denying the appellants, Stanley and Henry Ginsberg, their discharge in bankruptcy. The appellants had been adjudicated bankrupts both individually and as copartners trading as Hensten Appliance Co. The referee's action denying the appellants' discharge was based on his conclusion that they had obtained money or property on credit by making materially false statements in writing respecting their financial condition. Under section 14, sub. c(3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c(3), this, if established, is good ground for denying discharge. The referee's conclusion was based on his findings of fact that the appellants "as copartners" owed one Sidney Cohen $4,000 and one Joseph Abovitz $1,000 and had failed to disclose these debts in financial statements of the partnership which they had given for the purpose of obtaining credit.
In finding that these debts were owed by the appellants "as copartners" the referee apparently recognized, although he did not keep the distinction clear in his conclusions of law, that in bankruptcy a partnership is treated as an entity separate from the individual partners, Francis v. McNeal, 1913, 228 U.S. 695, 33 S.Ct. 701, 57 L.Ed. 1029; Myers v. International Trust Co., 1927, 273 U. S. 380, 47 S.Ct. 372, 71 L.Ed. 692; Liberty Nat. Bank of Roanoke, Va. v. Bear, 1928, 276 U.S. 215, 48 S.Ct. 252, 72 L.Ed. 536, and its estate is administered separately. Lurie v. United States, 6 Cir., 1927, 20 F.2d 589. The creditors of an individual partner do not share in the distribution of the partnership property along with the partnership creditors but only in the individual partner's share of any surplus of partnership property remaining after all the partnership debts are paid. Bankruptcy Act, § 5, sub. g, 11 U.S.C.A. § 23, sub. g. In other words, the partnership and its property as such are not liable for the individual debts of the partners.
In the present case the referee's conclusions cannot be supported in the light of these principles, and should have been set aside by the district court. For his findings, upon which they are based, that the Cohen and Abovitz debts were owed by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Timber Creek, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 95-28309-K.
...entity theory, which the bankruptcy laws follow. A partner is a separate entity from the partnership. See, for example, In re Ginsberg, 219 F.2d 472 (3d Cir.1955). Stated differently, a partnership is a distinct legal entity, separate from the partners who comprise it. See, for example, In ......
-
In re Bank Center, Ltd., Bankruptcy No. 81-1424
...do not apply to the actions against the partners of the Debtor. A partner is a separate entity from the partnership. See In re Ginsberg, 219 F.2d 472 (3rd Cir. 1955). In a recent case involving the use of the automatic stay under the same circumstances as are presented here, a Bankruptcy Co......
- National Labor Relations Bd. v. Mac Smith Garment Co.
-
Arthus Bertrand, S.A. v. Davis, 93-570
...Davis, is not liable for the preexisting obligations of his/her co-joint venturer. See Sec. 620.63, Fla.Stat. (1987); In re Ginsberg, 219 F.2d 472, 473 (3d Cir.1955) ("a debt contracted by a partner individually to obtain capital which he turns over to the firm for its use is not a debt of ......