Seigel v. Cartel

Citation164 F. 691
Decision Date19 October 1908
Docket Number2,681.
PartiesSEIGEL v. CARTEL et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

M. H Cohen, for appellant.

N. T Guernsey and C. F. Maxwell, for appellees.

Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS, District Judge.

PHILIPS District Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court refusing the petition of the bankrupt for final discharge. There are six specifications of objections to the discharge. If any one is good in law and is sustained by sufficient evidence, the order and decree of the District Court must be affirmed.

The substance of the first objection is that the bankrupt, within the four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, for the purpose of hindering delaying, and defrauding his creditors, transferred, removed destroyed, and concealed, or permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, and concealed, certain of his assets; approximately $11,000 worth of his stock of merchandise, consisting of furniture, stoves, carpets, etc. The evidence clearly enough shows that this merchant, between the 1st day of January, 1904, and August of that year, just preceding the proceeding in bankruptcy, disposed of between eleven and thirteen thousand dollars worth of goods. In other words, he was short that amount of stock at the time of the declared bankruptcy. He was called upon by the referee to account for these goods or their proceeds; the presumption being, as they were not on hand, that he had disposed of them and the proceeds were in his possession. In re Deuell (D.C.) 100 F. 633; In re Cashman (D.C.) 103 F. 67. Not having scheduled or surrendered the property to the trustee, the concealment of the proceeds, within the provisions of the statute, is presumed.

In re Finkelstein (D.C.) 101 F. 418; In re Meyers (D.C.) 96 F. 408; In re Morgan (D.C.) 101 F. 982.

The only tangible explanation of this shortage of funds by the petitioner is that he lost the money in gambling at poker. His evidence was that he had long indulged this habit of gambling, and estimated that he had probably at different times lost an aggregate of $100,000. As he seems to have been a most unlucky gambler, to say the least, it was not honest for him to thus take the proceeds of the goods he had purchased on credit to indulge his passion at the expense of his confiding creditors. While the statute does not deny the benefit of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Clay v. Waters
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 18, 1910
    ...the notes to third parties for value. If so, the presumption is that he received that value and still retains it. Seigel v. Cartel, 164 F. 691, 90 C.C.A. 512, citations. He merely returns 'that he has not in his possession or under his control any of said property, or the proceeds thereof. ......
  • In re Perlmutter
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 30, 1919
    ...... meaning of section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act, and that the. burden was shifted to him to overcome the case so made. In re. Leslie, supra; Seigel v. Cartel (C.C.A. 8) 164 F. 691, 90 C.C.A. 512, 21 Am.Bankr.Rep. 140; In re Nisenson. (D.C.) 182 F. 912, 24 Am.Bankr.Rep. 915. Until he did. this, ......
  • Henkin v. Fousek
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 15, 1917
    ...we would have found the same way. Good v. Kane, 128 C.C.A. 454, 211 F. 956; Schweer v. Brown, 64 C.C.A. 574, 130 F. 328; Seigel v. Cartel, 90 C.C.A. 512, 164 F. 691; re Friedman (D.C.) 153 F. 939. In the state of the record, there is no question of law for our consideration, and the petitio......
  • In re Nisenson
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • November 15, 1910
    ...repudiated. Schweer v. Brown, 130 F. 328, 64 C.C.A. 574, 12 Am.Bankr.Rep. 178; In re Lasky (D.C.) 163 F. 99, 20 Am.Bankr.Rep. 729; Seigel v. Cartel, supra; In re Henderson (D.C.) F. 385, 12 Am.Bankr.Rep. 351. In the last-cited case Judge McPherson held: 'An order requiring a bankrupt to tur......
  • 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