Williamson v. Williams
| Decision Date | 29 July 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 5078.,5078. |
| Citation | 137 F.2d 298 |
| Parties | WILLIAMSON v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
George E. Allen, of Richmond, Va., for appellant.
Charles W. Crowder, of Richmond, Va., for appellee.
Before DOBIE and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and MOORE, District Judge.
James Kader Williamson having been adjudicated a bankrupt on February 6, 1940, the referee fixed May 20, 1940, as the limit of time for filing objections to the bankrupt's discharge, and due notice thereof was given. Appellee filed specifications of objections. Those which were sustained by the referee and the Court alleged that the bankrupt had committed an offense punishable by imprisonment under the Bankruptcy Act, and had made a false oath in relation to the bankruptcy proceedings, in that he had purchased a new Ford automobile on October 7, 1939, titled it in the name of his unemployed minor daughter, Hester Vernelle Williamson, and omitted it from his schedule; and had failed to list or account for certain monies amounting to $100.33, which came into his hands a day or two before filing the petition in bankruptcy.
The referee found that the Ford automobile was bought by the bankrupt, and not by his brother, R. L. Williamson, as was contended by the bankrupt, and further found that the bankrupt had made a false oath to his pauper's affidavit, in that he had the $100.33 in his possession at the time he executed such affidavit. The district court sustained the referee's findings and denied the bankrupt a discharge. The bankrupt thereupon appealed to this court.
The applicable section of the Bankruptcy Act (Title 11 U.S.C.A. § 32) provides in part as follows:
The evidence in the case consists of the testimony of four witnesses, namely, the bankrupt, R. L. Williamson and P. P. Williamson, brothers of the bankrupt, and Hester Vernelle Williamson, daughter of the bankrupt, all of whom were called as adverse witnesses by appellee. The bankrupt and his daughter both testified that the Ford automobile had been purchased for her by R. L. Williamson; that he had made the cash payment, and that he had made all subsequent payments up to the time the testimony was given. R. L. Williamson did not mention the purchase of the Ford automobile. P. P. Williamson testified entirely about other matters.
It is contended by appellant that this testimony conclusively establishes that the automobile was purchased by R. L. Williamson and not by the bankrupt. In making this contention, appellant loses sight of the fact that inferences arising from admitted circumstances may sometimes be strong enough to outweigh the most positive and direct oral statements. Moreover, as provided in the above quoted section of the Bankruptcy Act, after a showing of reasonable grounds for believing that an offense has been committed, the bankrupt must sustain the burden of proving that he has not done the acts charged. His denial, together with that of the recipient of the allegedly concealed property, is not sufficient to sustain this burden where, as here, all the circumstances point to the truth of the allegations.
In brief, the circumstances shown by the evidence were as follows: R. L. Williamson had himself gone into bankruptcy in the year 1935. He had been a railroad fireman for seventeen years with no regular place of residence until his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whorton v. TA Loving & Company
...than direct evidence. Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325, 330, 81 S.Ct. 6, 5 L. Ed.2d 20 (1960). In Williamson v. Williams, 137 F.2d 298, 299 (4 Cir. 1943), this court said: "* * * inferences arising from admitted circumstances may sometimes be strong enough to outweigh the m......
-
In re Dolnick, 71 B 359.
...Plan Industrial Bank of New York v. Henderson, 131 F.2d 975 (2nd Cir. 1942); In re Rich, 134 F.2d 779 (2nd Cir. 1943); Williamson v. Williams, 137 F.2d 298 (4th Cir. 1943); In Matter of Van Jeffreys, 50 Am.Bankr.Rep.N.S., 328 (W. In recently enacted Bankruptcy Rules, Rule 810, governing the......
-
Minella v. Phillips, 16576.
...In re Bendix, 7 Cir., 1942, 127 F.2d 759, certiorari denied Hillmer v. Bendix, 317 U.S. 668, 63 S.Ct. 73, 87 L.Ed. 537; Williamson v. Williams, 4 Cir., 1943, 137 F.2d 298; Gold v. John R. Blair Co., 2 Cir., 1944, 142 F.2d 209; Burchett v. Myers, 9 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 920; Kansas Federal Cr......
-
In re Diplomat Electric, Inc.
...should not be disturbed in the absence of clear abuse. See, for example, Godfrey v. Powell, 5 Cir. 1947, 159 F.2d 330; Williamson v. Williams, 4 Cir. 1943, 137 F.2d 298. It is difficult to discern how a district judge's choice between conflicting views on a particular point of law could eve......