In re Pierce
| Decision Date | 20 July 1900 |
| Docket Number | 80. |
| Parties | In re PIERCE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
George H. Cobb, for bankrupt.
David Bearup, for creditor.
After a careful examination the referee has found that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a finding that the bankrupt knowingly and fraudulently concealed property from his trustee. I incline to the opinion that the conclusion of the referee in this regard is correct. If criticism of this condition of affairs is to be indulged in it should be directed not against the judicial but the legislative branch of the government. It cannot be disputed that the present act permits a discharge no matter how preferential and fraudulent have been the transfers of the bankrupt so long as his acts do not amount to a fraudulent concealment from his trustee of property belonging to his estate. Whether this should be so there may be serious doubt, that it is so there is no doubt. The proof here fails to establish a case under section 29b, subd. 1, Bankr. Act. The specification filed by the objecting creditor, now opposing the discharge, is, in my judgment, insufficient to present this issue, or any issue. The objection charging concealment omits the essential and fundamental allegation that the acts were done 'knowingly and fraudulently.' The objection that the bankrupt failed to keep books is not mentioned at all. Should the objecting creditor desire to proceed further in this matter he may amend the objections numbered 1 and 2 by inserting the necessary allegation as above indicated and he may verify the specification nunc pro tunc. No hardship can result as the evidence has been taken and considered upon the theory that the specification was sufficient. It would be unfair, however, to permit an objection presenting the issue as to the failure to keep books to be made at this late day. The discharge will in no way preclude the trustee from recovering property fraudulently transferred. The report of the referee is confirmed and the discharge is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leventhal v. Spillman
...of suit: the property transferred is its object, not the exaction of payment for the creditors from the bankrupt personally. In re Pierce, N.D. N.Y.1900, 103 F. 64; Rice v. Chapman, 1st Dept. 1932, 234 App.Div. 279, 255 N.Y.S. 35; Annotation 109 A.L.R. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment sett......
-
In re Agnew
... ... been done knowingly and fraudulently.' ... Many ... cases are cited. In short, there must have been an intent or ... purpose to mislead, deceive, and defraud the creditors or ... some of them. See, also, In re Patterson (D.C.) 121 ... F. 921, 10 Am.Bankr.Rep. 371; In re Pierce (D.C.) ... 103 F. 64, 4 Am.Bankr.Rep. 554; In re Kaiser (D.C.) ... 99 F. 689. Errors or mistakes in making up schedules are not ... infrequent, and so errors in estimating values are of ... frequent occurrence ... I think ... the specifications of objection, so far as they charge or ... ...
-
Bennett v. Erwin
...discharge of the bankrupt has no bearing upon the right of the trustee to recover property fraudulently transferred. In re Pierce (D. C.) 103 F. 64; In re Groves (D.C.) 244 F. 197; In re Levy (D.C.) 261 F. 432, affirmed sub nom. Levy v. Schorr (C.C.A.3d Cir.) 266 F. 207; McMullen v. Zabawsk......
-
In re Levey
... ... in an indictment. See Collier on Bankruptcy (3d Ed.) Sec ... 348; 2 Foster's Fed.Pr. (3d Ed.), p. 1144; In re ... Hirsch (D.C.) 96 F. 468; In re Kaiser (D.C.) 99 ... F. 689; In re Mudd (D.C.) 105 F. 348; In re ... Adams (D.C.) 104 F. 72; In re Pierce (D.C.) 103 ... F. 64. The acts set out must be charged to have been ... knowingly and fraudulently done. In re Patterson ... (D.C.) 10 Am.Bankr.R. 371, 121 F. 921; In re Blalock ... (D.C.) 9 Am.Bankr.R. 266, 118 F. 679. When it is alleged ... that the bankrupt has obtained property on credit ... ...