In re Claff

D. Massachusetts

In re Claff

111 F. 506, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedNovember 1, 1901

DocketNo. 3,543

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 111 F. 506 (In re Claff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Claff, 111 F. 506, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89 (D. Mass. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

LOWELL, District Judge.

Claff was adjudicated bankrupt in. 1899 upon a voluntary petition. His discharge was refused for fraudulent concealment of assets. In 1900 he filed a second petition, and seeks a discharge thereunder. That his discharge under the second petition, if obtained, will be no bar to a suit upon a debt sched[507]*507tiled under the first commission, and not proved under the second, seems clear. Gilbert v. Hebard, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 129; In re Drisko, 2 Low. 430, Fed. Cas. No. 4,090. See Dean v. Justices, 173 Mass. 453, 53 N. E. 893. But this fact does not prevent the bankrupt from filing a second petition, or from getting a discharge thereunder, for whatever the discharge may be worth. In re Drisko, above cited. The discharge is granted, and no exception will be made therein of debts scheduled under the earlier commission. It is more convenient to make the discharge a general one, and to leave its effect to be determined by subsequent proceedings. In re Marshall Paper Co., 43 C. C. A. 38, 102 Fed. 872, and cases cited; In re Black (D. C.) 97 Fed. 493.

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

LOWELL, District Judge.

Claff was adjudicated bankrupt in. 1899 upon a voluntary petition. His discharge was refused for fraudulent concealment of assets. In 1900 he filed a second petition, and seeks a discharge thereunder. That his discharge under the second petition, if obtained, will be no bar to a suit upon a debt sched[507]*507tiled under the first commission, and not proved under the second, seems clear. Gilbert v. Hebard, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 129; In re Drisko, 2 Low. 430, Fed. Cas. No. 4,090. See Dean v. Justices, 173 Mass. 453, 53 N. E. 893. But this fact does not prevent the bankrupt from filing a second petition, or from getting a discharge thereunder, for whatever the discharge may be worth. In re Drisko, above cited. The discharge is granted, and no exception will be made therein of debts scheduled under the earlier commission. It is more convenient to make the discharge a general one, and to leave its effect to be determined by subsequent proceedings. In re Marshall Paper Co., 43 C. C. A. 38, 102 Fed. 872, and cases cited; In re Black (D. C.) 97 Fed. 493.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. 506, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-claff-mad-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack