In re Godwin

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Godwin

122 F. 111, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 270

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 25, 1903

DocketNo. 1,472

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 F. 111 (In re Godwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Godwin, 122 F. 111, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 270 (E.D. Pa. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

It is very likely that the creditors may lose by the defeat of the proposed composition; but this consideration cannot be allowed to influence the court in deciding whether the bankrupt has been “guilty of any of the acts, or failed to perform any of the duties, which would be a bar to his discharge.” Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 12, cl. “d” [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3427]. I agree with the learned referee that the testimony establishes the fact [112]*112satisfactorily that the bankrupt has committed one of the offenses specified in section 14, cl. “b.” He has, “with fraudulent intent to conceal his true financial condition and in contemplation of bankruptcy, destroyed, concealed or failed to keep books of account or records from which his true condition might be ascertained.” This being so, I think the act requires me to refuse approval of the composition, without regard to the question whether the creditors would be benefited thereby; and the fact that only one creditor is actively objecting, while a large majority is in favor of taking what the bankrupt offers, is of no importance in the present inquiry.

The report of the referee is approved, and the confirmation of the composition is refused.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

It is very likely that the creditors may lose by the defeat of the proposed composition; but this consideration cannot be allowed to influence the court in deciding whether the bankrupt has been “guilty of any of the acts, or failed to perform any of the duties, which would be a bar to his discharge.” Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 12, cl. “d” [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3427]. I agree with the learned referee that the testimony establishes the fact [112]*112satisfactorily that the bankrupt has committed one of the offenses specified in section 14, cl. “b.” He has, “with fraudulent intent to conceal his true financial condition and in contemplation of bankruptcy, destroyed, concealed or failed to keep books of account or records from which his true condition might be ascertained.” This being so, I think the act requires me to refuse approval of the composition, without regard to the question whether the creditors would be benefited thereby; and the fact that only one creditor is actively objecting, while a large majority is in favor of taking what the bankrupt offers, is of no importance in the present inquiry.

The report of the referee is approved, and the confirmation of the composition is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 F. 111, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-godwin-paed-1903.

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack