In re Perelstine

• Decision Date: 10 March 1926
• Docket Number: No. 11702.,11702.
• Citation: 15 F.2d 64
• Parties: In re PERELSTINE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

15 F.2d 64 (1926)

In re PERELSTINE.

No. 11702.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

March 10, 1926.

Weil, Christy & Weil, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for Selz, Schwab & Co.

Maurice Chaitkin, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for bankrupt.

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

We have a motion on the part of the bankrupt to dismiss specification of objections filed by Selz, Schwab & Co., Albert H. Weinbrenner, and the American Seating Company. This motion must prevail as to Albert H. Weinbrenner and the American Seating Company, for, so far as they are concerned, the objections have not been verified. This leaves for our consideration only the sufficiency of the specification filed by Selz, Schwab & Co.

The first thing to notice is the question of whether or not the specification sufficiently shows that Selz, Schwab & Co. are entitled, under the statute, to object; that is, whether they are creditors interested in the estate. Selz, Schwab & Co. are listed as a creditor in the bankrupt's schedule. Their specification of objections discloses them to be a creditor and interested in the estate of the bankrupt. The bankrupt contends that, inasmuch as they have not proved their claim, and the time for filing proofs of claim has expired under the statute, they no longer have any interest in the estate, and cannot file specification of objections.

The authorities are not in accord on this subject. Some hold that, to object to the discharge, a creditor and party in interest must be one who has a debt provable in bankruptcy, which would be affected by the discharge. In re Chandler, 138 F. 637, 71 C. C. A. 87 (7th Circuit); In re Servis, 140 F. 222 (D. C. Iowa); In re Main, 205 F. 421, 30 Am. Bankr. Rep. 547 (District Court, Iowa). Others hold that parties scheduled as creditors may oppose discharge, even though they have not proven their claims. In re Frice (D. C.) 96 F. 611. Still others hold that a creditor from whom property has been obtained by a materially false statement in writing is entitled to contest the discharge, even though the bankrupt would not be discharged from that particular debt. In re Reed (D. C.) 191 F. 920.

A person also has been held to have sufficient interest to entitle him to oppose discharge where his claim is contingent and unliquidated, so as to be incapable of being proved as a debt, Ex parte Traphagen, Fed. Cas. No. 14,140; also, where he held an equitable claim against the estate, he was held to be entitled to file objections, In re Tebbetts, Fed. Cas. No. 13,817; and also where a claim against the estate is being contested, even though the claim has not been proved, In re Belden, Fed. Cas. No. 1,238. The District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has also held that one who has a suit pending against a bankrupt for the recovery of a debt, which is contested, is a party in interest, and entitled to contest the bankrupt's right to a discharge, although his claim has not been proved in the bankruptcy proceedings. In re Conroy, 134 F. 764.

In the instant case, Selz, Schwab & Co. have presented a reclamation petition to claim property in the hands of the trustee, alleging that it was obtained from them fraudulently by the...