In re Delmour

S.D. New York

In re Delmour

161 F. 589, 1908 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 393

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedApril 14, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 161 F. 589 (In re Delmour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Delmour, 161 F. 589, 1908 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 393 (S.D.N.Y. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

HOUGH, District Judge.

With the cases holding, or seeming to hold, that anything more than a fair preponderance of creditable testimony is necessary to require the court to deny a discharge, I do not agree. In my judgment the law is properly stated in Re Leslie, 9 Am. Bankr. Rep. 561, 119 Fed. 406, viz., that it is not necessary to [590]*590establish concealment of assets beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a fair preponderance of creditable testimon3r only. Viewed in this light, the referee’s report is entirely satisfactory. The testimony against the bankrupt was clear and direct. It may be admitted that it came from interested witnesses; but there are no more interested witnesses than the bankrupt and his wife. Their testimony in opposition is both shuffling and evasive, and that of the bankrupt can even from the printed page be seen to have been contemptuous.

The report is confirmed, and discharge denied.

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

HOUGH, District Judge.

With the cases holding, or seeming to hold, that anything more than a fair preponderance of creditable testimony is necessary to require the court to deny a discharge, I do not agree. In my judgment the law is properly stated in Re Leslie, 9 Am. Bankr. Rep. 561, 119 Fed. 406, viz., that it is not necessary to [590]*590establish concealment of assets beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a fair preponderance of creditable testimon3r only. Viewed in this light, the referee’s report is entirely satisfactory. The testimony against the bankrupt was clear and direct. It may be admitted that it came from interested witnesses; but there are no more interested witnesses than the bankrupt and his wife. Their testimony in opposition is both shuffling and evasive, and that of the bankrupt can even from the printed page be seen to have been contemptuous.

The report is confirmed, and discharge denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 F. 589, 1908 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-delmour-nysd-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack