In re Elliott

S.D. New York

In re Elliott

8 F. Cas. 540, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 110, 1868 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 376

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedSeptember 22, 1868

DocketCase No. 4,391

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 F. Cas. 540 (In re Elliott) 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 Elliott, 8 F. Cas. 540, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 110, 1868 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The specifications filed by Seely & Wolcott, show no legal ground for withholding a discharge. They do not specify any ground which is embraced in section 29 of the act, as a ground for refusing a discharge. It is clear, from the language of the act, and especially of section 34, that a discharge (if the formal requirements of the act have been complied with,) is to be refused only for some ground set, forth in section 29. The only ground alleged in the present case is, that the debt to Seely & Wolcott was a fiduciary debt. If so, the discharge will, by its terms, and the express provision of the act, (sections 33 and 34) fail to affect it. But this is no ground for refusing a discharge to operate on such debts not excepted by section 33. A discharge will be granted in this case, when the register shall have certified conformity.

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

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The specifications filed by Seely & Wolcott, show no legal ground for withholding a discharge. They do not specify any ground which is embraced in section 29 of the act, as a ground for refusing a discharge. It is clear, from the language of the act, and especially of section 34, that a discharge (if the formal requirements of the act have been complied with,) is to be refused only for some ground set, forth in section 29. The only ground alleged in the present case is, that the debt to Seely & Wolcott was a fiduciary debt. If so, the discharge will, by its terms, and the express provision of the act, (sections 33 and 34) fail to affect it. But this is no ground for refusing a discharge to operate on such debts not excepted by section 33. A discharge will be granted in this case, when the register shall have certified conformity.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. Cas. 540, 2 Nat. Bank. Reg. 110, 1868 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-elliott-nysd-1868.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack