In re Muscara
| Decision Date | 28 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 11024.,11024. |
| Citation | 18 F.2d 606 |
| Parties | In re MUSCARA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Charles J. Margiotti and W. M. Gillespie, both of Punxsutawney, Pa., for bankrupt.
Stonecipher & Ralston, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for objecting creditor.
This case was heard on exceptions to report of special master, to whom was referred the specifications of objections to the discharge of bankrupt, for the purpose of taking testimony with reference thereto, and making report thereof to the court, together with the special master's findings of fact and his recommendations in favor of or against the discharge. The referee reported recommending the dismissal of these specifications of objections and the granting of the discharge.
To this report objecting creditors filed six exceptions: (1) Error on part of master in not finding as a fact that bankrupt had destroyed or concealed books; (2) error on part of master in not finding as a fact that bankrupt had issued a materially false statement with intent to deceive and defraud; (3) error on the part of the referee in finding that the bankrupt did not conceal assets; (4) error in recommending that discharge be granted; (5) error in not recommending refusal of discharge; and (6) error in recommending that costs be paid by exceptants.
As to the first and third exceptions, which relate exclusively to findings of fact by the master with reference to the destroying or concealing of books and the concealing of assets, we are of the opinion that these findings of the master are fully supported by the evidence, and therefore we should not disturb them.
As to the second exception relating to the false statement, the special master was of the opinion that the objection to the discharge of the bankrupt failed, because the evidence tends to negative an "intention to deceive," and because the special master could not find as fact that credit was extended by reason of a reliance upon the statement. The special master did not expressly find whether the statement was true or false. In our opinion the evidence clearly establishes that the statement was false, and we cannot agree with the special master in his conclusion that the evidence negatives "an intention to deceive," and that there was no evidence that credit was extended by reason of a reliance upon the statement. In fact, we believe that the exact opposite is the only correct and proper deduction to be made from the evidence.
The bankrupt was informed by the representative of R. G. Dun & Co. that he wanted a statement for credit purposes. In response to that request the bankrupt gave a false statement. There could be no other conclusion than that the bankrupt intended to deceive in the false statement which he gave. Judge Rellstab, in Re Perlmutter (D. C. N. J.) 43 Am. Bankr. Rep. 362, 256 F. 862, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Barrett
...40 F.Supp. 495 (D.N.J.1941), aff'd, 125 F.2d 158 (3d Cir. 1942); In re Philpott, 37 F.Supp. 43, 46 (S.D.W.Va.1940); In re Muscara, 18 F.2d 606, 607 (W.D.Pa. 1927); Assocs. Consumer Finance Co. v. Crapo, 21 Mich.App. 195, 175 N.W.2d 315 Mr. Barrett also asserts that he thought his credit rep......
-
Matter of Lind
...309 (4th Cir. 1950); see, e.g., In re Philpott, 37 F.Supp. 43 (S.D.W.Va.1940); In re Hochberg, 17 F.Supp. 916 (W.D.Pa.1936); In re Muscara, 18 F.2d 606 (W.D.Pa.1927); In re Applebaum, 11 F.2d 685 (2nd Cir. 1926); In re Slohm, 10 F.Supp. 351 Turning to the question of what constitutes a "bus......
- Philadelphia Life Ins. Co. v. Burgess
-
Banks v. Siegel, 6011.
...on the false statement even though the creditor has made an independent investigation of the debtor's financial status. In re Muscara, D.C., 18 F.2d 606, 607; In re Applebaum, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 685, 686. Nor does the fact that the Loan Company required security for the loan necessarily negati......