In re Venson, 46712.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
Citation234 F. Supp. 271
Docket NumberNo. 46712.,46712.
PartiesIn the Matter of William (Willie) VENSON, Bankrupt.
Decision Date16 March 1964

F. L. Breen, Atlanta, Ga., for bankrupt.

King & Spalding, Atlanta, Ga., for Housing Authority, City of Atlanta.

MORGAN, District Judge.

William Venson, on September 26, 1963, was adjudged a bankrupt as a result of petition and schedules filed by him on that date. Among the debts which were scheduled by the bankrupt in his petition was a common law judgment which had been entered against him in condemnation proceedings in the amount of $7,200.00. This judgment against William Venson was in favor of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, and was listed on the schedules in the following manner:

Judgment Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, Case No. A-88440, The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta dated February 18 1963 $7200.00

The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta asserts that it was not listed as a creditor, and that the listing set forth above does not properly discharge the claim of the Housing Authority. Upon a hearing held before me on March 10, 1964, the attorney for the Housing Authority submitted an affidavit from a secretary in the office of the Referee in Bankruptcy who mails out the notices to the various creditors, and this affidavit states that this secretary mailed the notice to the Superior Court of Fulton County and not to the Housing Authority of the City of Altanta.

An admission was made by the attorney for the Housing Authority that a member of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, a Mr. Bob Waller, read of a William Venson bankruptcy in the Fulton County Daily Report. However, in that report no listing of the claims of any creditors was made, it being only a listing of a bankruptcy petition having been filed.

Subdivision a of Section 58 of the Bankruptcy Act requires that ten days notice shall be given to "creditors" in the instances specified therein. Subdivision b provides for thirty days' notice of the last day fixed for filing of objections to a discharge to (1) creditors, (2) the trustee and his attorney, and (3) the United States Attorney of the judicial district wherein the proceeding is pending.

For a debt to be "duly scheduled", the name of the creditor must be included in the schedule though failure of his description may not be fatal. See Re Osofsky, 2 Cir., 50 F.2d 241. What constitutes satisfactory performance of this requirement depends upon the particular facts in each case. Kreitlein v. Ferger, 238 U.S. 21, 35 S.Ct. 685, 59 L. Ed. 1184.

While extreme exactness must be used in scheduling the creditors by name, a misnomer need not be fatal on the principle of idem sonans or whether the creditor can easily be ascertained from the whole description given.

As in the case of scheduling the names of creditors, great care must be exercised by the bankrupt in specifying residences of creditors. In this respect, "due scheduling" requires that the residences of creditors, if known to the bankrupt, be set forth correctly in the schedule; If the bankrupt is ignorant of such information, such facts should be expressly stated in the schedule. No fixed rule can be laid down as to the particular manner in which the residence of a creditor must be designated, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • LOCAL 478 v. Jayne, Civ.A. No. 91-1901(AJL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • November 27, 1991
    ...Corp. v. Swan Carburetor Co., 88 F.2d 876, 885 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 302 U.S. 691, 58 S.Ct. 49, 82 L.Ed. 534 (1937); In re Venson, 234 F.Supp. 271, 272 (N.D.Ga.1964), aff'd, 337 F.2d 616 (1964). Rather, these cases hold that various notice requirements of private contracts and other non......
  • Acequia, Inc., In re, 84-4364
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 22, 1986 affirmative duty to disclose any transaction that might raise even an arguable claim by or against the Debtor. See In re Venson, 234 F.Supp. 271, 272 (N.D.Ga.) aff'd, 337 F.2d 616 (5th Cir.1964); In re Gilbert, 38 B.R. 948, 950 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1984). At the very least, the evidence prese......
  • In re Porter, Bankruptcy No. 77-00910-L.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. First Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Massachusetts
    • December 9, 1981 the amount of $17,554.28. Porter was obligated to use diligence and due care when scheduling his creditors on his petition. In re Venson, 234 F.Supp. 271, aff'd 337 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1964); Moureau v. Leaseamatic Inc., 542 F.2d 251 (5th Cir. 1976); Parker v. Murphy, 215 Mass. 72, 102 N.......
  • Brown v. Tucker Professional Associates, 52609
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • September 30, 1976
    ...knowledge of the proceedings. Venson v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, 337 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1964) affg. In re Venson, 234 F.Supp. 271 (N.D.Ga.1964). See Coppedge v. Aycock Mortgage & Bond Corp., 54 Ga.App. 437(3), 188 S.E. 311. 2. Notice or knowledge must come at such a time as......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT