In re Knetzer, No. 11508.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | striking all of it except the first sentence |
| Citation | 229 F.2d 232 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Robert L. KNETZER, Bankrupt. Robert W. JAFFKE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. William C. DUNHAM, as Trustee of the Estate of Robert L. Knetzer, Bankrupt, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 11508. |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1956 |
229 F.2d 232 (1956)
In the Matter of Robert L. KNETZER, Bankrupt.
Robert W. JAFFKE, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
William C. DUNHAM, as Trustee of the Estate of Robert L. Knetzer, Bankrupt, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 11508.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
January 13, 1956.
On Motion to Modify February 13, 1956.
G. William Horsley, L. H. Lenz, Springfield, Ill., for defendant-appellant.
Roscoe Bonjean, William M. Giffin, Wanless, Craven & Giffin, Springfield, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and SWAIM and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
SWAIM, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Southern Division, sitting in Bankruptcy in the
The fraud by which Knetzer was alleged to have induced the petitioner to give him the money which petitioner seeks to reclaim from the trustee in bankruptcy consisted of representations by Knetzer to the petitioner made during the period from December 7, 1950, to and including March of 1951. These representations were that he (Knetzer) was the manager of a large corporation known as the Bison Construction and Mining Corporation in which a number of well to do men were interested; that this corporation was to build a large number of homes in a housing project near the Air Force Base at Great Falls, Montana; that a similar project which Knetzer had just finished promised to pay a 50 per cent profit; that an influential man was arranging for a loan to the corporation from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, but that it was such a large scale operation that it would take two years to complete it and that in order to initiate the business the corporation needed money then; and that the investors in this project would share pro rata in the profits.
Jaffke's petition alleges that these representations by Knetzer were false and were known to Knetzer to be false but that they were believed by Jaffke to be true, and that by these false representations Knetzer induced Jaffke to give him for investment in the project money in the total sum of $47,980.00.
In the hearing on Jaffke's petition, Jaffke testified that because of Knetzer's false representations he (Jaffke) paid to Knetzer during the period between December 7, 1950 and October 22, 1951, both dates inclusive, a total of $47,980.00. Jaffke's petition alleged that of this amount Knetzer turned over to the defendant trustee the sum of $36,000.00.
In arriving at the amount of $27,400.00, which the trial court ordered that the petitioner recover from the trustee, the court apparently subtracted from the amount alleged to have been paid to the trustee by Knetzer, $3,800.00 which Jaffke admitted that he knew was to be paid to the trustee to keep Knetzer out of prison, and $4,800.00 which Jaffke admitted had been repaid to him by a relative of the bankrupt.
In seeking to set aside the order of the trial court the appellant trustee questions the admission of certain evidence which was received in the hearing on Jaffke's petition. The appellant first questions the competence of the testimony of the petitioner as to his dealings with Knetzer. The objection to this testimony is based on Section 2 of the Evidence Act of the State of Illinois, Illinois Revised Statutes, c. 51, § 2 (Bar Association Edition 1955). This statute provides in part:
"No party to any civil action, suit or proceeding, or person directly interested in the event thereof, shall be allowed to testify therein of his own motion, or in his own behalf, by virtue of the foregoing section, when any adverse party sues or defends as the trustee or conservator of any habitual drunkard, or person who is mentally ill or mentally deficient, or as the executor, administrator, heir, legatee or devisee of any deceased person, or as guardian or trustee of any such heir, legatee or devisee * * *."
The testimony of the petitioner was objected to on the ground that he was an "interested party" within the meaning of the statute for the reason that the respondent trustee was acting not only as trustee in bankruptcy for the creditors but also as trustee and representative for the widow and minor children who were heirs of the deceased bankrupt.
We think this objection was not well taken. The obvious purpose of the Illinois statute is to protect persons under disability and the heirs of deceased persons, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Universe Tankships v. Pyrate Tank Cleaners
...to the evidence. In analyzing this record, the Court has sorted out the facts from the guesses. See Matter of Knetzer, 7 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 232, 237. And in determining what inferences from the known data "are common sense under the circumstances," the Court has borne in mind Chief Judge ......
-
Gordon v. Spalding, No. 17451.
...A good illustration of their application is found in the recent case of Jaffke, Petitioner v. Dunham, Trustee of Knetzer, 7 Cir., 1956, 229 F. 2d 232, reversed by the Supreme Court 1957, 352 U.S. 280, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed. 2d 314. Jaffke, along with a number of others, was induced by Knetze......
-
Minemet, Inc. v. MV MORMACDRACO, No. 81 Civ. 2366.
...v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 613, 407 N.E.2d 451, 457 (1980). 18 T.R. at 471. 19 See In re Knetzer, 229 F.2d 232, 237 (7th Cir. 1956); see also Universe Tankships v. Pyrate Tank Cleaners, 152 F.Supp. 903, 920 (S.D. 20 In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371, 90 S.......
-
JD Hedin Construction Co. v. FS Bowen Electric Co., No. 14971.
...may be set aside. See United States v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 1958, 333 U.S. 364, 394-395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746; In re Knetzer, 7 Cir., 229 F.2d 232, 237, reversed on other grounds sub nom. Jaffke v. Dunham, 1957, 352 U.S. 280, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed.2d 314. And compare Hatahley v. United St......
-
Universe Tankships v. Pyrate Tank Cleaners
...to the evidence. In analyzing this record, the Court has sorted out the facts from the guesses. See Matter of Knetzer, 7 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 232, 237. And in determining what inferences from the known data "are common sense under the circumstances," the Court has borne in mind Chief Judge ......
-
Gordon v. Spalding, No. 17451.
...A good illustration of their application is found in the recent case of Jaffke, Petitioner v. Dunham, Trustee of Knetzer, 7 Cir., 1956, 229 F. 2d 232, reversed by the Supreme Court 1957, 352 U.S. 280, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed. 2d 314. Jaffke, along with a number of others, was induced by Knetze......
-
Minemet, Inc. v. MV MORMACDRACO, No. 81 Civ. 2366.
...v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 613, 407 N.E.2d 451, 457 (1980). 18 T.R. at 471. 19 See In re Knetzer, 229 F.2d 232, 237 (7th Cir. 1956); see also Universe Tankships v. Pyrate Tank Cleaners, 152 F.Supp. 903, 920 (S.D. 20 In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371, 90 S.......
-
JD Hedin Construction Co. v. FS Bowen Electric Co., No. 14971.
...may be set aside. See United States v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 1958, 333 U.S. 364, 394-395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746; In re Knetzer, 7 Cir., 229 F.2d 232, 237, reversed on other grounds sub nom. Jaffke v. Dunham, 1957, 352 U.S. 280, 77 S.Ct. 307, 1 L.Ed.2d 314. And compare Hatahley v. United St......