In re Brisco

District of Columbia

In re Brisco

4 F. Cas. 152, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 226

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided July 1, 1869·Published

Opinion

The following' decision has been given by

Judge WYLIE,

of Washington:

First. Until a creditor has proved his claim, he ought not to be heard as a creditor, and he has no right to be heard in any other character.

Second. Where a creditor wishes to oppose the discharge of a bankrupt on the ground that he has committed fraud, or done, suffered, or been privy to some act specified in the bankrupt act as a ground for withholding such discharge, the orderly conduct of the business requires that the trial of all such questions should be postponed till the hearing of the petition for discharge.

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

The following' decision has been given by

Judge WYLIE,

of Washington:

First. Until a creditor has proved his claim, he ought not to be heard as a creditor, and he has no right to be heard in any other character.

Second. Where a creditor wishes to oppose the discharge of a bankrupt on the ground that he has committed fraud, or done, suffered, or been privy to some act specified in the bankrupt act as a ground for withholding such discharge, the orderly conduct of the business requires that the trial of all such questions should be postponed till the hearing of the petition for discharge.

In re Brisco, 4 F. Cas. 152, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 226 (D.D.C. 1869).

Pincite

4 F. Cas. 152 (In re Brisco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.