In re Licht, No. 17979.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Writing for the Court | BYERS |
| Citation | 45 F.2d 844 |
| Parties | In re LICHT. |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 17979. |
45 F.2d 844 (1930)
In re LICHT.
No. 17979.
District Court, E. D. New York.
December 10, 1930.
H. & J. J. Lesser, of New York City (Jacob J. Lesser, of New York City, of counsel), for bankrupt.
Samuel B. & Bernard Pollak, of New York City (Julius Davison, of New York City, of counsel), for Magoba Const. Co., Inc.
Yankauer Davidson & Mann, of New York City, for Clarence G. Bachrach and Irving Trust Co.
BYERS, District Judge.
Hearing on exceptions to specifications of objections to discharge of the above-named bankrupt.
Irving Trust Company and Clarence G. Bachrach, trustees of the above-named bankrupt, and Magoba Construction Company, Inc., a creditor, have filed identical specifications in opposition to the discharge of this bankrupt; and the fifth specification only is challenged as being insufficient in law, on the face thereof. It may be paraphrased as follows:
That the bankrupt obtained money and property on credit by making and publishing written, materially false statements respecting his financial condition; and that he was the president and sole stockholder of the corporation known as H. Licht, Inc., in which he had an exclusive pecuniary interest, and from which corporation he withdrew substantial funds, and at all times used the funds of the corporation for his own private uses and purposes, and used the corporation as a cloak and guise for his own individual transactions.
That an allegedly false statement was issued by him in March, 1929, and purported to set forth the financial condition of the corporation, and was issued to a mercantile agency and to another corporation for the purpose of obtaining merchandise on credit
The statement is said to have been false in that it set forth a net worth on the part of the corporation of above $400,000, whereas there was an actual deficit of substantially that same amount; further that, by virtue of said false statement, "the bankrupt obtained merchandise and property" from the said corporation and from subscribers to the mercantile agency, of the value of over $10,000, "all of which property was sold on credit by said above-mentioned concerns in reliance upon said materially false financial statement."
The bankrupt has, in effect, demurred to the foregoing specification, whereby the truth of the allegations must be taken to have been admitted, for the purposes of this motion.
Section 14b of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended in 1926, provides that, where the bankrupt has "(3) obtained money or property on credit, or obtained an extension or renewal of credit, by making or publishing, or causing to be made or published, in any manner whatsoever, a materially false statement in writing respecting his financial condition" (11 USCA § 32(b) (3), the discharge may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Leichter, No. 10659.
...Referee, or Wilensky v. Goodyear 197 F.2d 958 Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 1 Cir., 1933, 67 F.2d 389, and In re Licht, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1930, 45 F.2d 844, cited by counsel for the objecting creditors in support of the judgment of the District Court. In the Levy case the bankrupt was a large sto......
-
In re Marcus, No. 91332.
...by the device of `interposing an artificial personality between the bankrupt and the lender.'" See, also, In re Licht, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 45 F.2d 844, 846, cited with approval in Wilensky, which held that a false statement as to the condition of a corporation wholly owned and controlled by ......
-
In re Marcus, No. 181
...276 U.S. 281, 48 S.Ct. 298, 72 L.Ed. 572; Wilensky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 1 Cir., 67 F.2d 389, and In re Licht, D.C., 45 F.2d 844. In Wilensky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., supra (a case arising after the 1926 amendment of the Bankruptcy Act), the bankrupt had been the owne......
-
Holland Furnace Co. v. WH KRATZER CO., No. 1840.
...the remedy seen, yet Eibel was an inventor. In this case to accept the enlightened judgment of the plaintiff's expert, the failure of Cox 45 F.2d 844 was obvious, and the means to cure it were equally obvious. There is therefore no invention. As the Chief Justice said in the Eibel Case, &qu......
-
In re Leichter, No. 10659.
...Referee, or Wilensky v. Goodyear 197 F.2d 958 Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 1 Cir., 1933, 67 F.2d 389, and In re Licht, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1930, 45 F.2d 844, cited by counsel for the objecting creditors in support of the judgment of the District Court. In the Levy case the bankrupt was a large sto......
-
In re Marcus, No. 91332.
...by the device of `interposing an artificial personality between the bankrupt and the lender.'" See, also, In re Licht, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 45 F.2d 844, 846, cited with approval in Wilensky, which held that a false statement as to the condition of a corporation wholly owned and controlled by ......
-
In re Marcus, No. 181
...276 U.S. 281, 48 S.Ct. 298, 72 L.Ed. 572; Wilensky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 1 Cir., 67 F.2d 389, and In re Licht, D.C., 45 F.2d 844. In Wilensky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., supra (a case arising after the 1926 amendment of the Bankruptcy Act), the bankrupt had been the owne......
-
Holland Furnace Co. v. WH KRATZER CO., No. 1840.
...the remedy seen, yet Eibel was an inventor. In this case to accept the enlightened judgment of the plaintiff's expert, the failure of Cox 45 F.2d 844 was obvious, and the means to cure it were equally obvious. There is therefore no invention. As the Chief Justice said in the Eibel Case, &qu......