In re Toothaker Bros.

• Citation: 128 F. 187
• Decision Date: 12 February 1904
• Docket Number: 1381.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: In re TOOTHAKER BROS.

128 F. 187

In re TOOTHAKER BROS.

No. 1381.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

February 12, 1904

L. E Stanton and Bacon & Spellacy, for petitioners.

Joseph L. Barbour, for bankrupt.

PLATT District Judge.

The important allegations of the petition are: (1) Charles F Murray filed a petition asking to be adjudged a bankrupt December 18, 1901. (2) His schedules declared his assets to be $50, and all exempt. (3) There appearing to be no assets a trustee was not appointed. (4) A discharge was granted April 21, 1902. (5) Before December 18, 1901, the date of filing the petition, said Murray was possessed of an asset which was a claim against the Hartford Telegram Company for $1,006.65 for services rendered. (6) For the purpose of concealing said asset and depriving his creditors of dividends to be derived therefrom, and for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, said Murray, on July 18, 1901, assigned said asset to his wife. (7) Said assignment was without any consideration, and for the sole purpose of concealing the claim from his creditors, and was and is void. (8) Said asset was omitted from the schedules, and by means of the assignment he concealed the existence of the said asset from his creditors, and was guilty of an offense which would have prevented him from receiving a discharge, if known to the court. (9) The petition was brought within the year, and without laches. To the petition a demurrer is filed by said Murray. There are two reasons given for the demurrer: (1) That it is not alleged that the actual facts did not warrant the bankrupt's discharge. (2) That there is no allegation of any fact, which, if known to the judge when the bankrupt's discharge was granted, would have been ground for a refusal to grant such discharge.

The first cause of demurrer is without merit. If the facts set forth would have warranted the judge in refusing the discharge, there is no force in asking that the petitioners, after presenting them in detail, should assert the conclusion of law, which it would remain the duty of the court to infer from the facts.

The second cause of demurrer requires more thought. To sustain it, however, the counsel for Murray is forced by the logic of the situation to contend that a bankrupt may transfer property to his wife without consideration, and in fraud of his creditors, and with the latter purpose in view, at any date which shall be more than four months prior...