In re Katz

• Decision Date: 22 March 1938
• Docket Number: No. 31143.,31143.
• Citation: 23 F. Supp. 431
• Parties: In re KATZ.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

23 F. Supp. 431

In re KATZ.

No. 31143.

District Court, E. D. New York.

March 22, 1938.

George Reiss, of New York City, for bankrupt.

Freiman & Brecher, of New York City, for Manhattan Produce Exchange, Inc.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is an application made by Manhattan Produce Exchange, Inc., who successfully opposed the discharge of the bankrupt, for an order directing the bankrupt to pay the following disbursements incurred by the creditor in opposing the bankrupt's application for discharge:

                  "Stenographer's Minutes                    $89.50
                   Referee's fees                             55.00
                     The following subpoenas
                     were served and subpoena
                     fees were given to these witnesses: —
                   Guzzi (twice)
                   Caella
                   Martallo & Shapiro
                   Yecks
                   Standard Accident & Insurance
                    Co
                   Augusta Emil
                   State Insurance Fund (twice)
                   Brooklyn Edison Company
                   New York Telephone Company                 30.00
                   Photostatic copies of records               2.11
                                                             _______
                                                         $176.61."
                

This court in reversing the order of the referee recommending the discharge of the bankrupt, in its opinion filed March 7, 1938, 23 F.Supp. 429, used the following language:

"This case is illustrative of many more of rampant perjury on the part of the bankrupt and his witnesses. The bankrupt is not entitled to be discharged."

This is a wanton and willful effort on the part of the bankrupt to avoid the payment of his just obligations by procuring his discharge in bankruptcy. If it were not for the prosecution of the specifications of objections by the Manhattan Produce Exchange, Inc., the bankrupt would have been successful in discharging his obligations. Certainly, this creditor is entitled to be compensated for his disbursements in opposing the discharge. In Re Kootenai Motor Co., Inc., D.C., 43 F.2d 462, the court decided:

"The power to award costs against creditors who file objections in opposition to a bankrupt's discharge is inherent in a District Court of the United States as a court of equity, and may be exercised in proper cases. Bragassa v. St. Louis Cycle et al. (C.C.A.) 107 F. 77; In re Guilbert (D.C.) 154 F. 676. Section 2, clause 18, of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 11(18), provides that the court may `Tax costs, whenever they are allowed by law, and render judgments therefor against the unsuccessful party, or the successful party for cause, or in part against each of the parties, and against estates, in proceedings in bankruptcy.' Generally costs usually abide the event, and are given against the unsuccessful party, and in matters of discharge, the statute authorizes the court to tax costs against the unsuccessful party, or the successful party, or in part against each of the parties, and against estates in bankruptcy proceedings. Under the statute courts have often, where discharges were granted, taxed costs against opposing creditors. In re Black (D.C.) 97 F. 493; Fellows v. Freudenthal (C.C.A.) 102 F. 731; In re Marshall Paper Co. (C.C.A.) 102 F. 872; In re Todd (D.C.) 112 F. 315."

In Re Simon, D.C., 279 F. 794, the court decided:

"These are petitions for the allowance of disbursements and for counsel fees to a creditor who alone prosecuted successfully objections to the discharge of the bankrupt. It is objected that there is no power to make such orders, and, if there be such power, it ought not to be exercised.

"Simon was a...