Stim v. Simon

Citation284 F.2d 58
Decision Date04 November 1960
Docket NumberNo. 60,Docket 26304.,60
PartiesJoseph D. STIM, Trustee, Appellant, v. Max SIMON, Bankrupt, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

284 F.2d 58 (1960)

Joseph D. STIM, Trustee, Appellant,
v.
Max SIMON, Bankrupt, Appellee.

No. 60, Docket 26304.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued October 13, 1960.

Decided November 4, 1960.


284 F.2d 59

Joseph D. Stim, Farmingdale, N. Y., pro se.

Samuel B. Weingrad, New York City, for appellee.

Before CLARK, MAGRUDER and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

MAGRUDER, Circuit Judge.

A trustee in bankruptcy filed before the referee ten specifications on the basis of which he contended that the bankrupt should be denied a discharge. Some of these specifications were withdrawn, and others were dismissed by the referee after trial. But of course one specification is enough, under the Bankruptcy Act, and the referee, concluding that the protesting trustee had made out the allegations of specification 5, entered an order denying a discharge to the bankrupt. Upon review of the referee's order, the district court concluded that it should be reversed and the bankrupt granted his discharge. This the district court accomplished in the order we now have under review, on appeal by the trustee. 182 F.Supp. 377.

Section 14, sub. c of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c, contains this provision:

"The court shall grant the discharge unless satisfied that the bankrupt has (1) committed an offense punishable by imprisonment as provided under title 18, United States Code, section 152 * * *: Provided, That if, upon the hearing of an objection to a discharge the objector shall show to the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the bankrupt has committed any of the acts which, under this subdivision c, would prevent his discharge in bankruptcy, then the burden of proving that he has not committed any of such acts shall be upon the bankrupt."

18 U.S.C. § 152 is as follows:

"Concealment of Assets; false oaths and claims; bribery. * * * Whoever knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any bankruptcy proceeding * * *
"Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Specification 5 alleged as follows:

"The Bankrupt committed an offense punishable by imprisonment as provided under Title 18, United States Code, Section 152 in that on or about February 7th, 1958, the Bankrupt did knowingly and fraudulently make a false oath and account in the above entitled bankruptcy proceeding in that he did state that Schedule A submitted by the Bankrupt with his bankruptcy petition contained a statement of all his debts according to the best of his knowledge,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • In re Cox
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • August 25, 1965
    ...all creditors, if knowingly and fraudulently done, is grounds for denying a discharge under Sec. 14, sub. c(1), supra. Stim v. Simon, (2 Cir., 1960) 284 F.2d 58; In re Schnabel, (D.C.Minn.1945) 61 F.Supp. 386; see also Jackson v. Menick, (9 Cir. 1959) 271 F.2d 806; In re Haydu, (D.C.N.Y.195......
  • In re Gibraltor Amusements Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • March 15, 1963
    ...in the forum in which was vested the prime responsibility for determination of the facts and the exercise of discretion. Stim v. Simon, 2 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 58, 60; In re Rosenberg, 2 Cir., 1944, 145 F. 2d 896, 898; Sloan's Furriers, Inc. v. Bradley, 6 Cir., 1945, 146 F.2d 757, 759. See U......
  • In re Gibraltor Amusements, Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 24, 1961
    ...as they must be to warrant reversal. Margolis v. Nazareth Fair Grounds & Farmers Market, Inc., 2 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 221; Stim v. Simon, 2 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 58; In re Tabibian, 2 Cir., 289 F.2d 793. The only substantial question raised is the standing of WAC as a separate petitioning Wu......
  • In re Melnick
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 5, 1966
    ...the facts "who saw and heard the witness." In re Slocum, supra, 22 F.2d at 286; In re Steinberg, 143 F.2d 942 (2 Cir. 1944); Stim v. Simon, 284 F.2d 58 (2 Cir. 1960). ...
  • 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