Vehon v. Ullman
| Decision Date | 11 August 1906 |
| Docket Number | 1,248. |
| Parties | VEHON v. ULLMAN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Rehearing Denied, October 2, 1906.
Thos Cratty, for appellant.
Lessing Rosenthal, for appellee.
Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.
January 23rd, 1902, the appellant was adjudged a bankrupt, and on the 19th of June, of the same year, petitioned the District Court for his discharge. Objections having been filed by one Percy G. Ullman, one of the creditors, the petition with the objections were referred to the referee; and upon the referee's report that the bankrupt was not entitled to his discharge, and the exceptions to that report riled by the bankrupt, an order was entered refusing his discharge. From this order the appeal is prosecuted.
Some question is made as to what is the basis of the inquiry here the appellee claiming that his thirteen specifications of objections to the bankrupt's discharge are before the court-- the appellant insisting that the first, and the first only, of these specifications is the basis of the inquiry.
The order appealed from shows that the case in the District Court came on to be heard on the report of the referee, and the bankrupt's exception thereto, and that thereupon it was ordered that the exceptions be overruled; that the report and the recommendations herein be approved and confirmed; and that the petition for discharge be denied; to all of which the bankrupt entered his motion for an appeal.
Going back to this report of the referee, it is seen that the specification passed upon was that the bankrupt had concealed assets from his trustee, by omitting to schedule a list of names of customers, said to constitute a valuable asset; that the omission was with fraudulent intent; and was done knowingly, and in violation of the provisions of the bankruptcy act. No other specification having been passed upon by the referee, we are of the opinion that the specification set out is the only one that was before the District Court, and therefore the only one brought by appeal here.
The facts upon which this specification is based are not in doubt. Before his adjudication as a bankrupt, appellant was president of a corporation of his own name. The corporation was in what is known as the mail order business-- a business requiring a list of names and addresses constantly 'freshened up,' by dropping useless names, and adding useful ones, to whom the corporation could address mail presenting its business. Appellant as president, prepared these lists, and at the same time made copies-- the originals being transcribed into the corporation's books, the copies being taken by the bankrupt to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Taub
...upon the part of the bankrupt. Sharcoff v. Schieffelin & Co., 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 725; Humphries v. Nalley, 5 Cir., 269 F. 607; Vehon v. Ullman, 7 Cir., 147 F. 694; In re Wetmore, D.C., 99 F. 703. In the case at bar the policy payable to the bankrupt's estate had a cash surrender value on the d......
-
In re Groth
...$5,000 in a homestead by him occupied. Obviously his creditors, then, had no interest in this homestead property. In the case of Vehon v. Ullman, 147 F. 694, 696, this court said: "`The whole question' said the referee, `turns on the matter of intent.' * * * While intent is a pertinent inqu......
-
Third Nat. Bank v. Schatten
...appellant did not except to his failure to do so. It was not therefore before the court, and is not subject to review here. Vehon v. Ullman, 147 F. 694 (C.C.A.7). The special master found that the proof fully sustained the first and second specifications, and recommended that the discharge ......