In re Arnold

1 F. Supp. 499, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1771
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedMarch 8, 1932
DocketNo. 3639
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 F. Supp. 499 (In re Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Arnold, 1 F. Supp. 499, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1771 (D.N.H. 1932).

Opinion

MORRIS, District Judge.

Thomas H. Arnold of Plaistow, N. H., was adjudged a bankrupt upon his voluntary petition on January 5, 1931.

On March 30, 1931, he made application for his discharge, which was duly published and made returnable before the court on May 21, 1931.

On that date various creditors filed objections to the bankrupt’s discharge.

The matter came on for hearing before the court June 24, 1931, and after a day’s hearing was adjourned to some later date to be fixed by the court.

The matter came on again for hearing before the court July 10, 1931, at Boston, and at the suggestion of counsel after a day’s hearing was continued for further evidence.

The next hearing was before the court at Concord September 29, 1931, since which time counsel have prepared and filed written arguments.

The original objections to the discharge w.ere five in number, all of which appear to be embodied in the specifications of Blake Brothers & Co., as follows:

(1) The first objection alleges that the bankrupt, in an attempt to conceal his financial condition, failed to keep books of accounts or records from which such condition might be ascertained.

(2) The second objection alleges that the bankrupt for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding his creditors, transferred to Thomas H. Arnold, Ine., certain of his property known as the “Plaistow property,” situated in. Plaistow, N. H., and. that the said property at the time of the appointment of the trustee was being held in secret trust by said Thomas H. Arnold, Ine., for the bankrupt, and that the bankrupt, omitted this property from his schedule of assets and failed to reveal to said trustee the existence of the same or the facts as to the title.

(3) Objection No. 3 charges the bankrupt with knowingly and fraudulently making a false oath in omitting- from his schedule of assets one eight-cylinder Packard automobile.

* (4) Objection No. 4 charges the bankrupt, on or about the 8th day of May, 1929, with being the owner of securities, bonds and other evidence of indebtedness in the sum of $200,000 and for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding his creditors caused to be organized under the laws of the state of New Hampshire, a corporation known as the Thomas H. Arnold, Ine., the organizers [501]*501of said corporation being tbe bankrupt, his father, Thomas M. Arnold, and his mother, Carrie G. Arnold; that the corporation had no assets other than the property received from the bankrupt; that there was issued to Thomas H. Arnold 498 shares of the pretended par value of $100 each; to said Thomas M. Arnold and Carrie G. Arnold 1 share each.'

(5) Objection No. 5 charges that the bankrupt transferred and conveyed securities and property to the said corporation and that a large part thereof is concealed beyond the reach of the trustee in bankruptcy.

On October 28, 1931, the objecting creditors filed a motion to amend their specifications hereinbefore filed, which after due consideration I have not allowed.

In considering the several objections it becomes necessary to outline at some length the business transactions in which the bankrupt had been engaged for a few years prior to January 5, .1931, the date on which his bankruptcy petition was filed.

Erom the records and testimony I find that the bankrupt was chiefly occupied in stoek speculations. While there is some mention of his having been engaged in other business transactions, it is clear that during the years 1928 to 1931 his interest shifted from any former business to stoek specula^ tions, principally on margin accounts.

So far as known his stoek speculations were carried on with two brokerage firms, namely, Elmer H. Bright & Co. and Hayden, Stone & Co. Not all of his transactions were carried on in his own name. There were two accounts in his own name, one with each of the above-named brokers; there were two accounts in the name of Thomas H. Arnold, Inc., one with each of the above-named brokers ; there was also an account with Elmer H. Bright & Co. in the name of S. A. Arnold, the bankrupt’s minor daughter; one in the name of T. M. Arnold, the bankrupt’s father; and a joint account in the name of the bankrupt and his wife, Adele J. Arnold.

Exhibits covering these several brokerage accounts taken from the broker’s records have been introduced in evidence.

An examination of the seven transcripts of account indicates that during the period covered there was always onp active trading account. Erom July, 1927, to October, 1928, the active trading account was in the bankrupt’s own name with Elmer H. Bright & Co. During a part of the same period, namely, from June 13, 1928, to October 11, 1928, there was a less active account with the same brokers in the name of S. A. Arnold. In October, 1928, the bankrupt was having marital troubles with his wife and an attachment in the sum of $50,000 was placed on the bankrupt’s account with Elmer H. Bright & Co., and both the above-named accounts were closed out shortly thereafter leaving $50,000 in the broker’s hands to satisfy the attachment. Erom November, 1928, to April, 1929, the active trading account appears to have been with Hayden, Stone & Co., carried on in the name of the bankrupt. In April, 1929, a new account was opened with Elmer H. Bright & Co., in the name of T. M. Arnold, the bankrupt’s father, who was then and ever since has been of weak mentality. This for a short time became the active trading account, although the account with Hayden, Stone & Co. was not closed out until May 31, 1929. On May 31, 1929, a new account was opened with Elmer H. Bright & Co., in the name of Thomas H. Arnold, Inc. That remained the active trading account until closed out November 18,1930. It was opened by the transfer to it of the securities and debit balances in the bankrupt’s account with Hayden, Stone & Co. and a part of the T. M. Arnold account, although the latter account was not finally closed until October, 1930, but, from May 31, 1929, it ceased to be an active account.

The only other accounts mentioned in the testimony are an account of Thomas H. Arnold, Inc., with Hayden, Stone & Co., and one in the name of the bankrupt and his wife with Elmer H. Bright & Co., neither of which became active trading accounts but appear to have been used mainly for cash transactions.

The bankrupt testified that in juggling these accounts from one name to another he had in mind the possibility of attachments being made on accounts standing in his own name.

The corporation known as Thomas H. Arnold, Inc., above mentioned, was formed in 1929 for the purpose of dealing in securities. The only persons interested were the bankrupt and his father and mother. The capital stoek of the corporation consisted of 750 shares of a par value of $100 each, making a total capitalization of $75,000; 500 shares of the stock were issued; 498 to Thomas H. Arnold, the bankrupt, and one share each to Thomas M. Arnold, father, and Carrie C. Arnold, mother, of the bankrupt.

The property transferred to the corporation consisted of various securities on which the debit balance stood at about $231,279.41, [502]*502and on which the equity or value in excess of debit balance was in the vicinity of $100,000. There was also transferred to the corporation land and buildings located on Main street in Plaistow, N.

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

Related

In re Stalco TV & Appliance Co.
129 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. Texas, 1955)
Burchett v. Myers
202 F.2d 920 (Ninth Circuit, 1953)
In Re Bank
34 F. Supp. 706 (W.D. New York, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 F. Supp. 499, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arnold-nhd-1932.