Albert E. Obrist v. Charles H. Christensen

Ninth Circuit

Albert E. Obrist v. Charles H. Christensen

337 F.2d 220, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4332

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 1964

Docket19205_1

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 337 F.2d 220 (Albert E. Obrist v. Charles H. Christensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert E. Obrist v. Charles H. Christensen, 337 F.2d 220, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4332 (9th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

At issue here is the question of whether Christensen should have his general discharge in bankruptcy. The district court has affirmed the referee and has held that he should. Obrist, a creditor, appeals.

Prior to adjudication of bankruptcy, Christensen gave Obrist “bad checks,” not honored by the bank because of insufficient funds in the drawer’s account, in exchange for cattle. The checks were issued on different dates. Obrist contends to prevent a general discharge, as he must, that the checks were a false financial statement under 11 U.S.C. § 32 (Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act).

Section 32, general discharge, is not to be confused with debts not discharged by a general discharge, 11 U.S.C. § 35 (Section 17 of the Act). No question under Section 35 is before us. That is not the issue.

The few cases in the field are squarely against the appellant. See In re Robinson, 1 Cir., 266 F. 970 and In re Rea Bros., D.C.Mont., 251 F. 431. Also, Scott v. Smith, 9 Cir., 232 F.2d 188, in our view upholds appellee.

Appellant believes there should be a different rule on an Oregon bad check because of ORS 165.225, which makes refusal to pay by the drawee bank prima facie evidence of fraud of the drawer. We think that section does mesh with Section 35, but does not make a check a financial statement. While obviously a financial statement need not be preceded by a recital of, “This is a financial statement,” yet it ought to have some relation to the popular concept of what a financial statement is. We go so far as to say that this would not normally include a negotiable instrument.

*221 It may be that Obrist has been grievously wronged, but his rights are not now and have not been under Section 32.

The order of the district court affirming the referee’s order overruling the objections to the discharge is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

At issue here is the question of whether Christensen should have his general discharge in bankruptcy. The district court has affirmed the referee and has held that he should. Obrist, a creditor, appeals.

Prior to adjudication of bankruptcy, Christensen gave Obrist “bad checks,” not honored by the bank because of insufficient funds in the drawer’s account, in exchange for cattle. The checks were issued on different dates. Obrist contends to prevent a general discharge, as he must, that the checks were a false financial statement under 11 U.S.C. § 32 (Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act).

Section 32, general discharge, is not to be confused with debts not discharged by a general discharge, 11 U.S.C. § 35 (Section 17 of the Act). No question under Section 35 is before us. That is not the issue.

The few cases in the field are squarely against the appellant. See In re Robinson, 1 Cir., 266 F. 970 and In re Rea Bros., D.C.Mont., 251 F. 431. Also, Scott v. Smith, 9 Cir., 232 F.2d 188, in our view upholds appellee.

Appellant believes there should be a different rule on an Oregon bad check because of ORS 165.225, which makes refusal to pay by the drawee bank prima facie evidence of fraud of the drawer. We think that section does mesh with Section 35, but does not make a check a financial statement. While obviously a financial statement need not be preceded by a recital of, “This is a financial statement,” yet it ought to have some relation to the popular concept of what a financial statement is. We go so far as to say that this would not normally include a negotiable instrument.

*221 It may be that Obrist has been grievously wronged, but his rights are not now and have not been under Section 32.

The order of the district court affirming the referee’s order overruling the objections to the discharge is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

337 F.2d 220, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-e-obrist-v-charles-h-christensen-ca9-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack