In re Fanning

E.D. New York

In re Fanning

155 F. 701, 1907 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedJune 18, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 155 F. 701 (In re Fanning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.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 Fanning, 155 F. 701, 1907 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221 (E.D.N.Y. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

This is a motion for the confirmation of the special commissioner’s report upon a reference to him on objections to the application by the bankrupt for a discharge.

The special commissioner has sufficiently set forth the facts in his report, and has correctly stated and interpreted the law. The bankrupt apparently gave evasive and disrespectful answers, but there is nothing to show that he willfully concealed testimony, preventing the creditors from obtaining the property, and it does not seem that his conduct was such as to merit punishment by refusing to grant him a discharge, inasmuch as the referee apparently did not consider the conduct of the bankrupt when a witness to be worthy of any discipline. The purpose of the penalties of the bankruptcy statute is to prevent bankrupts from concealing their property and defrauding their creditors. Ordinary questions of contumacy or contempt of court can be disposed of directly, and of themselves are not to be corrected by the withholding of a discharge.

The special commissioner’s report will be confirmed in all respects, and the application for a discharge granted.

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

CHATFIELD, District Judge.

This is a motion for the confirmation of the special commissioner’s report upon a reference to him on objections to the application by the bankrupt for a discharge.

The special commissioner has sufficiently set forth the facts in his report, and has correctly stated and interpreted the law. The bankrupt apparently gave evasive and disrespectful answers, but there is nothing to show that he willfully concealed testimony, preventing the creditors from obtaining the property, and it does not seem that his conduct was such as to merit punishment by refusing to grant him a discharge, inasmuch as the referee apparently did not consider the conduct of the bankrupt when a witness to be worthy of any discipline. The purpose of the penalties of the bankruptcy statute is to prevent bankrupts from concealing their property and defrauding their creditors. Ordinary questions of contumacy or contempt of court can be disposed of directly, and of themselves are not to be corrected by the withholding of a discharge.

The special commissioner’s report will be confirmed in all respects, and the application for a discharge granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F. 701, 1907 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fanning-nyed-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack