In re Brown

Fifth Circuit

In re Brown

112 F. 49, 50 C.C.A. 118, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4069

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1901

DocketNo. 1,060

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 112 F. 49 (In re Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Brown, 112 F. 49, 50 C.C.A. 118, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4069 (5th Cir. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The opposition -to a bankrupt’s discharge causes delay, a trial, and, naturally, expense and trouble to the bankrupt, as well as costs to the estate. A verification of such opposition seems to be required to prevent frivolous objections and waste of time, and we think that such opposition is within the intent and meaning of section i8c of the bankrupt act of 1898. If a verification of the opposition is required, it should be positive and certain, not vague and argumentative.

The question principally argued in this court is whether the said section 18c is mandatory or simply directory. If mandatory, then the riding of the court as to the sufficiency of the verifications attached to the opposition was correct; if, on the other hand, said section is directory only, then it was discretionary with the judge to require compliance with the statute, and his ruling requiring a verification, and a positive verification, is not subject to review.

The petition is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

The opposition -to a bankrupt’s discharge causes delay, a trial, and, naturally, expense and trouble to the bankrupt, as well as costs to the estate. A verification of such opposition seems to be required to prevent frivolous objections and waste of time, and we think that such opposition is within the intent and meaning of section i8c of the bankrupt act of 1898. If a verification of the opposition is required, it should be positive and certain, not vague and argumentative.

The question principally argued in this court is whether the said section 18c is mandatory or simply directory. If mandatory, then the riding of the court as to the sufficiency of the verifications attached to the opposition was correct; if, on the other hand, said section is directory only, then it was discretionary with the judge to require compliance with the statute, and his ruling requiring a verification, and a positive verification, is not subject to review.

The petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F. 49, 50 C.C.A. 118, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brown-ca5-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack