In re Goldenberg & Halbert
| Decision Date | 23 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 7229. |
| Citation | 286 F. 292 |
| Parties | In re GOLDENBERG & HALBERT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Hepburn Dechert & Norris, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioning creditor.
Aarons Weinstein, Goldman & Stone, of Philadelphia, Pa., for bankrupts.
It appears by the petition of the Textile Banking Company, Inc. in support of the rule, that a petition for discharge of the bankrupts was filed and made returnable April 21, 1922; that thereafter, on May 19, 1922, before the referee, the bankrupt Goldenberg admitted under oath that, on behalf of himself and his copartner, he had issued a false financial statement in writing; that, pending endeavors on the part of the creditors to raise a fund to oppose a discharge of the bankrupts and employ the attorney for the trustee as their attorney, it was verbally agreed between the attorney for the bankrupts and the attorney for the trustee that the time for filing objections to the discharge should be extended to June 19 1922.
The creditors having failed to raise the necessary funds, the petitioner, on or about June 9, 1922, communicated with its present attorneys requesting them to appear and oppose the discharge. After endeavoring on June 9 to communicate with the attorneys for the bankrupts over the telephone, and being unable to get into telephonic communication, the petitioner's attorneys on June 10 wrote the bankrupts' attorney, notifying him that they represented the petitioner; that they understood from the attorney for the trustee that the petition for discharge would come before the court on Monday, June 19, and that, in all probability, they would appear and present reasons showing why the discharge should not be granted; that this letter addressed to the bankrupts' attorney was duly mailed on June 10, 1922, which was Saturday, and should have been received on Monday, June 12, 1922; that petitioner's attorneys thereupon prepared specifications of objection to the discharge; that, relying on the statements made to its attorneys by the attorney for the trustee, and the further fact that no reply had been received to the letter of June 10, the petition opposing the discharge was held for presentation on June 19, 1922, at 10 o'clock.
On June 17, 1922, a letter was received by the attorneys for the petitioner from the attorney for the bankrupt advising them that the petition for discharge had been presented to the court on June 16, 1922, and a decree of discharge entered. The rule to show cause having been allowed on June 21, 1922, the bankrupts on July 6, 1922, moved to dismiss the petition for the reason that it fails to set up three essentials of section 15 of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. Sec. 9599) relating to revocation of discharges, namely, that the decree of discharge was obtained through the fraud of the bankrupt; that knowledge of the fraud had come to the petitioner since the granting of the discharge; and specified grounds whereon a discharge should be refused, if objections had been seasonably filed.
It is true that the petition does not contain sufficient averments to come within the provisions of section 15, and, if that section denies the court power to act except as therein provided, the petition must be dismissed. The facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Early
...equitable grounds. In re Louisville National Banking Co. 6 Cir., 158 F. 403; In re Applegate (D.C.N.Y.) 235 F. 271; In re Goldenberg & Halbert (D.C.Pa.) 286 F. 292; Rash v. Metzger 3 Cir., 31 F.2d 424; In re Martin 7 Cir., 38 F.2d 629; In re Ingrao (D.C.N.Y.) 40 F.2d 946. See, also, In re B......
-
In re Scheffler
...equitable grounds. In re Louisville National Banking Co., 158 F. 403 (C.C.A.6); In re Applegate, 235 F. 271 (D.C.N.Y.); In re Goldenberg & Halbert, 286 F. 292 (D.C.Pa.); Rash v. Metzger, 31 F.2d 424 (C.C.A.3); In re Martin, 38 F.2d 629 (C.C.A.); In re Ingrao, 40 F.2d 946 (D.C.N.Y.). See, al......
-
In re Brown
...F.2d 468; Rash v. Metzger, 3 Cir., 1929, 31 F.2d 424; In re Louisville Nat. Banking Co., 6 Cir., 1908, 158 F. 403; In re Goldenberg & Halbert, D.C.E.D.Pa.1923, 286 F. 292; In re Applegate, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1916, 235 F. 271. A case to the contrary is In re Aasand, D.C.D.N.D.1925, 7 F.2d 135. Thes......
-
In re Carobine
...grounds. In re Louisville National Banking Co., 158 F. 403 (C. C. A. 6); In re Applegate, 235 F. 271 (D. C. N. Y.); In re Goldenberg & Halbert, 286 F. 292 (D. C. Pa.); Rash v. Metzger, 31 F.(2d) 424 (C. C. A. 3); In re Martin, 38 F.(2d) 629 (C. C. A. 7); In re Ingrao, 40 F.(2d) 946 (D. C. N......