Huntley v. Snider

First Circuit

Huntley v. Snider

88 F.2d 335, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3117

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 1937

DocketNo. 3170

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 F.2d 335 (Huntley v. Snider) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huntley v. Snider, 88 F.2d 335, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3117 (1st Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

MORTON, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner requests a rehearing on the ground that its ninth assignment of [336]*336error was not passed upon. The assignment was considered but was not deémed to present questions sufficiently doubtful to call for discussion. The appellant’s contention, viz. that the trustee in bankruptcy, by settling with the appellant’s wife with respect to property fraudulently transferred to her by the bankrupt, estopped himself and all creditors of the bankrupt estate from opposing discharge, is plainly, unsound. There are many decisions against it. In re Dayis (D.C.) 34 F.(2d) 778; In re Quackenbush (D.C.) 102 F. 282, at page 285; In re Sussman (D.C.) 190 F. 111; In re Jacobson (D.C.) 9 F.(2d) 139; In re Singer (C.C.A.) 251 F. 51; In re Russell (D.C.) 52 F.(2d) 749. The offense of fraudulent concealment is complete when the bankrupt has failed to disclose his property to his trustee after having had reasonable opportunity to do so. His breach of duty is not excused if the trustee discovers the concealed property and recaptures it. In re Singer, 251 F. 51 (C.C.A. 2); In re Quackenbush, supra; In re Sussman, supra. Moreover, as the appellee points out, the concealed property, which is described in the trustee’s petition to compromise and is that with respect to which the settlement was made, did not include certain other property which the referee found belonged to the bankrupt and had been fraudulently concealed. All the assignments of error were considered, and none was found to be well taken.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

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

MORTON, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner requests a rehearing on the ground that its ninth assignment of [336]*336error was not passed upon. The assignment was considered but was not deémed to present questions sufficiently doubtful to call for discussion. The appellant’s contention, viz. that the trustee in bankruptcy, by settling with the appellant’s wife with respect to property fraudulently transferred to her by the bankrupt, estopped himself and all creditors of the bankrupt estate from opposing discharge, is plainly, unsound. There are many decisions against it. In re Dayis (D.C.) 34 F.(2d) 778; In re Quackenbush (D.C.) 102 F. 282, at page 285; In re Sussman (D.C.) 190 F. 111; In re Jacobson (D.C.) 9 F.(2d) 139; In re Singer (C.C.A.) 251 F. 51; In re Russell (D.C.) 52 F.(2d) 749. The offense of fraudulent concealment is complete when the bankrupt has failed to disclose his property to his trustee after having had reasonable opportunity to do so. His breach of duty is not excused if the trustee discovers the concealed property and recaptures it. In re Singer, 251 F. 51 (C.C.A. 2); In re Quackenbush, supra; In re Sussman, supra. Moreover, as the appellee points out, the concealed property, which is described in the trustee’s petition to compromise and is that with respect to which the settlement was made, did not include certain other property which the referee found belonged to the bankrupt and had been fraudulently concealed. All the assignments of error were considered, and none was found to be well taken.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F.2d 335, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huntley-v-snider-ca1-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack