In re Huntley
| Decision Date | 08 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 46623.,46623. |
| Citation | 14 F. Supp. 784 |
| Parties | In re HUNTLEY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Alexander G. Gould, of Boston, Mass., for bankrupt.
Samuel L. Bailen, of Boston, Mass., for objecting creditors.
The above matter is before the court on bankrupt's petition for a discharge. The referee to whom were referred specifications of objections has reported adversely. He sustains two only of nine alleged grounds of objections. These are:
And:
He has also found that the bankrupt made a false oath in connection with the proceedings, but inasmuch as that ground is not specified it would seem, on the authorities, that bankrupt's application cannot be denied on that ground. In re Little (C.C.A.) 65 F.(2d) 777; In re Russell (D.C.) 52 F.(2d) 749; In re Feinsilver (C.C.A.) 24 F.(2d) 408; Scales v. A. L. Stone & Son (C.C.A.) 22 F.(2d) 676.
From the referee's report the following material facts appear: Bankrupt's petition was filed August 9, 1930. More than twelve months prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the bankrupt transferred to his wife, without consideration, certain bank deposits, shares of stock, and real estate. A corporation in which the bankrupt owned practically all the stock had previously filed a petition in bankruptcy. The trustee of the bankrupt corporation and the trustee of Huntley attacked the transfers and succeeded in effecting a settlement by which the bankrupt's wife paid to each of the trustees the sum of $6,500. The referee finds that these assets were, in fact, property of the bankrupt and transferred and assigned by him to Mrs. Huntley with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors.
There is a further finding that some two months before bankruptcy the bankrupt took from his safe all of its contents, including between $600 and $700 in cash, and that during the examination the bankrupt was rather vague respecting all of these transactions.
Inasmuch as the transfers were not "subsequent to the first day of the twelve months immediately preceding the filing of the petition," it is obvious that the allegations of the eighth specification of objections cannot operate to bar plaintiff's discharge. This leaves the only question, whether he committed the offense of "knowingly and fraudulently concealing from his trustee property belonging to his estate in bankruptcy."
According to his report, the referee placed some reliance upon the fact that Mrs. Huntley paid $13,000 in equal amounts to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Gould
...transform a mere preference into a transfer banned by the Act. In re Brown, D.C., 140 F. 383; In re Hedley, D.C., 156 F. 314; In re Huntley, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 784, Huntley v. Snider, 1 Cir., 86 F.2d 539. The bankrupt's hope or expectation with respect to the use of the car must not be confus......
-
In re Winik
...Mitchell Co. v. Lawton, 3 Cir., 82 F.2d 689; In re Gurney, 2 Cir., 71 F.2d 144; In re Richter, 2 Cir., 57 F.2d 159; In re Huntley, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 784; In re Beckman, D. C., 6 F.Supp. 957; In re McCann, D.C., 179 F. 575. The property in these cases, however, does not consist of the periodi......
-
In re Walter
...concealment down to and after bankruptcy. In re Baxter, D.C., 27 F.Supp. 54; Duggins v. Heffron, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 546; In re Huntley, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 784; In re Wilfert, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 307. It follows, also, that the bankrupt made a false oath when he omitted this beneficial interest in ......
-
Huntley v. Snider, 3170.
...until some months after the latter's appointment and qualification." Judge Brewster accepted these findings of fact, saying (14 F.Supp. 784, 786): "Clearly on the Referee's report it cannot be ruled that the transfers were a bona fide gift to the wife." He denied the discharge, citing In re......