Levy v. Industrial Finance Corporation, No. 217
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 48 S.Ct. 298,276 U.S. 281,72 L.Ed. 572 |
| Parties | LEVY v. INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION et al |
| Docket Number | No. 217 |
| Decision Date | 05 March 1928 |
v.
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION et al.
Page 282
Mr. S. M. Brandt, of Norfolk, Va., for petitioner.
Mr. R. Randolph Hicks, of New York City (Messrs. James J. Irwin, Jr., and Evelyn P. Luquer, both of New York City, on the brief), for respondents.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
Levy, a bankrupt, was denied a discharge by the District Court, and the denial was affirmed on appeal by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 16 F. (2d) 769. In view of a conflict between this decision and In re Applebaum, 11 F. (2d) 685, a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 274 U. S. 731, 47 S. Ct. 659, 71 L. Ed. 1327. The conflict concerns the construction of section 14b(3) of the Bankruptcy Act. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 550; Act June 25, 1910, c. 412, § 6, 36 Stat. 838, 839 (11 USCA § 32). By that section 'the judge shall * * * discharge the applicant unless he has * * * (3) obtained money or property on credit upon a materially false statement in writing, made by him to any person or his representative for the purpose of obtaining credit from such person.' The facts that raise the question are found to be as follows. The bankrupt was president of the American Home Furnishers Corporation, had the general management and control of it, had made large advances to it, and with his sister-in-law owned more than two-thirds of the stock; he obtained a loan of $1,500,000 to the corporation from the objectors and in order to obtain it made to them a statement in writing, known by him to be false, which very materially overstated the assets of the corporation. There is no doubt of his pecuniary interest in the result of the fraud found to have been practiced by
Page 283
him, but it is said that he did not obtain money by this fraud inasmuch as the money went to the corporation and not to him.
A man obtains his end equally when that end is to induce another to lend to his friend and when it is to bring about a loan to himself. It seems to us that it would be a natural use of ordinary English to say that he obtained the money for his friend. So when the statute speaks simply of obtaining money, the question for whom the money must be obtained depends upon the context and the policy of the act. It would seem that so far as policy goes there is no more reason for granting a discharge to a man who has fraudulently obtained a loan to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. Elco Distributors, No. 11079.
...321, 45 S. Ct. 107, 69 L.Ed. 309; Morimura, Arai & Co. v. Taback, 279 U.S. 24, 49 S.Ct. 212, 73 L.Ed. 586; Levy v. Industrial Corporation, 276 U.S. 281, 48 S.Ct. 298, 72 L.Ed. 572." In re Eastham, D. C., 51 F.2d In Morimura, Arai & Company v. Taback, supra, the Supreme Court, in reversing a......
-
State v. Letman
...L.Ed. 543 (1925), is unquestionably one that is specifically delineated. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2173, 72 L.Ed. 572, 594 (1982). The Carroll Court stated the rule to On reason and authority the true rule is that if the search and seizure without a warrant a......
-
Traylor v. State, No. 6
...States, supra, is applicable only to searches of automobiles based on probable cause. United States v. Ross, U.S. , 102 S.Ct. [2157], 72 L.Ed. 572 (1982). See also Ex Parte Vogel, [426 So.2d 882] No. 80-175 (Ala. July 23, 1982). A warrantless search is justified if it is based on facts whic......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...CARRO, J.P., and FEIN, J., who dissent in a memorandum by CARRO, J.P., as follows: In United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed. 572, the United States Supreme Court held that police officers who have legitimately stopped a car and have probable cause to believe contraban......
-
Cunningham v. Elco Distributors, No. 11079.
...321, 45 S. Ct. 107, 69 L.Ed. 309; Morimura, Arai & Co. v. Taback, 279 U.S. 24, 49 S.Ct. 212, 73 L.Ed. 586; Levy v. Industrial Corporation, 276 U.S. 281, 48 S.Ct. 298, 72 L.Ed. 572." In re Eastham, D. C., 51 F.2d In Morimura, Arai & Company v. Taback, supra, the Supreme Court, in reversing a......
-
State v. Letman
...L.Ed. 543 (1925), is unquestionably one that is specifically delineated. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2173, 72 L.Ed. 572, 594 (1982). The Carroll Court stated the rule to On reason and authority the true rule is that if the search and seizure without a warrant a......
-
Traylor v. State, No. 6
...States, supra, is applicable only to searches of automobiles based on probable cause. United States v. Ross, U.S. , 102 S.Ct. [2157], 72 L.Ed. 572 (1982). See also Ex Parte Vogel, [426 So.2d 882] No. 80-175 (Ala. July 23, 1982). A warrantless search is justified if it is based on facts whic......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...CARRO, J.P., and FEIN, J., who dissent in a memorandum by CARRO, J.P., as follows: In United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed. 572, the United States Supreme Court held that police officers who have legitimately stopped a car and have probable cause to believe contraban......