In re Claff

111 F. 506, 1901 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89
District Court, D. Massachusetts·Decided November 1, 1901·No. No. 3,543·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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] tiled 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

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

111 F. 506 (In re Claff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Zeiler
18 F. Supp. 539 (S.D. New York, 1937)
In re Brislin
10 F. Supp. 181 (N.D. New York, 1934)
In re Cooper
236 F. 298 (D. New Jersey, 1916)
In re Levitan
224 F. 241 (D. New Jersey, 1915)
Bacon v. Buffalo Cold Storage Co.
193 F. 34 (Fifth Circuit, 1912)
In re Pullian
171 F. 595 (E.D. Tennessee, 1909)
In re Kuffler
155 F. 1018 (E.D. New York, 1907)
In re Feigenbaum
151 F. 508 (S.D. New York, 1902)