Crue v. Timmer

Sixth Circuit

Crue v. Timmer

119 F.2d 415, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3723

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 1941

DocketNo. 8574

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 119 F.2d 415 (Crue v. Timmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crue v. Timmer, 119 F.2d 415, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3723 (6th Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMONS, Circuit Judge.

The appeal is from an order of the bankruptcy court denying, upon, recommendations of the referee, the bankrupt’s petition for discharge. The order is not defended by the trustee, either by the filing of a brief or by his presence in court for argument.

Since it appears from the undisputed evidence disclosed by the record that the alleged false statement of assets and liabilities signed by the bankrupt was prepared by an agent of the objecting creditor who was fully informed as to the liabilities omitted therefrom, and there is no proof that the statement was ever received by the creditor or relied upon in extending credit to the bankrupt, and it being the view of the court that inference may not be substituted for proof,

It is ordered that the order denying the bankrupt’s petition for discharge be and it is hereby reversed, and that the cause be and it is hereby remanded for the entry of an order of discharge.

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

SIMONS, Circuit Judge.

The appeal is from an order of the bankruptcy court denying, upon, recommendations of the referee, the bankrupt’s petition for discharge. The order is not defended by the trustee, either by the filing of a brief or by his presence in court for argument.

Since it appears from the undisputed evidence disclosed by the record that the alleged false statement of assets and liabilities signed by the bankrupt was prepared by an agent of the objecting creditor who was fully informed as to the liabilities omitted therefrom, and there is no proof that the statement was ever received by the creditor or relied upon in extending credit to the bankrupt, and it being the view of the court that inference may not be substituted for proof,

It is ordered that the order denying the bankrupt’s petition for discharge be and it is hereby reversed, and that the cause be and it is hereby remanded for the entry of an order of discharge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F.2d 415, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crue-v-timmer-ca6-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack