Schweer v. Brown
| Decision Date | 26 March 1904 |
| Docket Number | 1,921. |
| Citation | 130 F. 328 |
| Parties | SCHWEER v. BROWN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
A petition of creditors, an order to show cause, a response by the bankrupt, and a hearing before the referee in bankruptcy upon the issue joined, resulted in a finding by the referee that Schweer, the bankrupt, had in his possession or under his control assets belonging to his estate in bankruptcy of the amount or value of $17,895.61, and an order that he surrender the same to the trustee. Upon the application of the bankrupt the matter was certified to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas and that court, upon a review of the proceedings and the evidence before the referee, found that the bankrupt had in his possession or under his control assets of his estate in bankruptcy amounting to $15,607.61, and thereupon ordered him to surrender the same to the trustee within a specified time and that, upon his failure so to do, he be committed to the county jail of Pulaski county, Ark., as for contempt, and be there detained until the further order of the court, or discharged by due process of law. The bankrupt appealed.
Harry H. Myers and U.S. Bratton, for appellant.
George B. Pugh and Robert E. Wiley, for appellee.
Before SANBORN, THAYER, and HOOK, Circuit Judges.
HOOK Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .
The first contention of the bankrupt is that the enforcement of the order of the District Court would constitute imprisonment for debt, and would therefore be in contravention of the provision of the Constitution of Arkansas (Const. art. 3 Sec. 16) that no person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action on mesne or final process unless in case of fraud. This is no longer a debatable question. Assuming the correctness of the finding of the referee and of the District Court that the bankrupt had in his possession property belonging to his estate in bankruptcy, his obligation to comply with the order of the court by surrendering it to the trustee is not the obligation to pay a debt. The adjudication in bankruptcy operated to transfer to the trustee the title to all of the property of the bankrupt which was subject to distribution to all of the property of the bankrupt which was subject to distribution among his creditors. His obligation and his duty to surrender to the trustee property in his possession which belongs to the trustee, and not to him, cannot be converted into a debt, at his option, by his mere refusal to comply with the order of the court. Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U.S. 1, 22 Sup.Ct. 269, 46 L.Ed. 405; In re Purvine, 96 F. 192, 37 C.C.A. 446; In re Rosser, 101 F. 562, 41 C.C.A. 497; Ripon Knitting Works v. Schreiber (D.C.) 101 F. 810; Id., 104 F. 1006, 43 C.C.A. 682; In re Schlesinger, 102 F. 117, 42 C.C.A. 207. These cases also furnish a conclusive answer to the claim of the bankrupt that his mere denial under oath of the possession of assets is conclusive, and that in such case the only remedy of the trustee and the creditors is by proceedings under the penal sections of the bankrupt act.
The final question is whether the evidence presented by the record is sufficient to support the finding upon which the order of the District Court was based. Without stopping to consider the measure of proof which is applicable to a case of this character-- whether it need only be clear and convincing, as in cases of fraud, or whether it must be sufficient to convince beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal actions or proceedings-- it will do to say that a careful examination of the record has satisfied us beyond a reasonable doubt that when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. Henderson
...whether the summary remedy is an appropriate one within the principles of decision here stated. Mueller v. Nugent, supra; Schweer v. Brown, 130 F. 328, 64 C. C. A. 574; Id., 195 U. S. 171, 25 S. Ct. 15, 49 L. Ed. 144; Hebert v. Crawford, 228 U. S. 204, 33 S. Ct. 484, 57 L. Ed. 800; In re El......
-
In re Southern Metal Products Corporation, 6049.
...whether the summary remedy is an appropriate one within the principles of decision here stated. Mueller v. Nugent, supra; Schweer v. Brown 8 Cir., 130 F. 328; Id., 195 U.S. 171, 25 S.Ct. 15, 49 L.Ed. 144; Hebert v. Crawford, 228 U.S. 204, 33 S.Ct. 484, 57 L.Ed. 800; In re Ellis Bros. Printi......
-
Teasdale v. Robinson, 16636.
...one within the principles of decision here stated. Mueller v. Nugent, supra 184 U.S. 1, 22 S.Ct. 269, 46 L.Ed. 405; Schweer v. Brown, 8 Cir., 130 F. 328; Id., 195 U.S. 171 25 S.Ct. 15, 49 L.Ed. 144; Hebert v. Crawford, 228 U.S. 204 33 S.Ct. 484, 57 L.Ed. 800; In re Ellis Bros. Printing Co. ......
-
Kirsner v. Taliaferro
...Trust Co. v. Wallis, 126 F. 464, 61 C.C.A. 342; and two were in the Eighth: Boyd v. Glucklich, 116 F. 131, 53 C.C.A. 451; Schweer v. Brown, 130 F. 328, 64 C.C.A. 574. no one of the three was there anything said as to the proper method of bringing such an order below to the attention of the ......