In re Howard

Second Circuit

In re Howard

180 F. 399, 103 C.C.A. 545, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4775

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 1910

DocketNo. 318

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 180 F. 399 (In re Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Howard, 180 F. 399, 103 C.C.A. 545, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4775 (2d Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.,

We think that the special master was right in his opinion that the objecting creditors failed to substantiate their first specification of objection. The business of the bankrupt — that of a mining promoter — did not require any elaborate accounts. The records and memoranda which he kept seem to- have been sufficient to disclose substantially the, state of his financial affairs, and that was enough. In our opinion the- evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding that the failure to keep more complete records arose from any intention upon the part of the bankrupt to conceal his financial condition. Certainly 'we think the evidence would not warrant such a findl-ing in the face of the report of the special master who saw the bankrupt upon the stand and heard his testimony at length.

- We also think that the. special master was right in his conclusions with respect to the other specifications of objection. It is true, ‘as pointed. out-by thé district judge, that the evidence concerning the transfer of the Mt. Shasta mining lease from the bankrupt to his wife was not altogether satisfactory. But suspicious circumstances are not enpugh to show a fraudulent transfer, and, assuming that the doctrine of continuóus concealment applies in the case of fraudulent transfers, vie' think' that the objecting creditors failed to substantiate their charges of the fraudulent concealment o.f assets and the making .of fáfsE’oa'ths, '

)i'J_The',,Qtcler d.f the District Court, is"-reversed, with costs¿ and the cause remanded, with instructions to grant the bankrupt his discharge.

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

PER CURIAM.,

We think that the special master was right in his opinion that the objecting creditors failed to substantiate their first specification of objection. The business of the bankrupt — that of a mining promoter — did not require any elaborate accounts. The records and memoranda which he kept seem to- have been sufficient to disclose substantially the, state of his financial affairs, and that was enough. In our opinion the- evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding that the failure to keep more complete records arose from any intention upon the part of the bankrupt to conceal his financial condition. Certainly 'we think the evidence would not warrant such a findl-ing in the face of the report of the special master who saw the bankrupt upon the stand and heard his testimony at length.

- We also think that the. special master was right in his conclusions with respect to the other specifications of objection. It is true, ‘as pointed. out-by thé district judge, that the evidence concerning the transfer of the Mt. Shasta mining lease from the bankrupt to his wife was not altogether satisfactory. But suspicious circumstances are not enpugh to show a fraudulent transfer, and, assuming that the doctrine of continuóus concealment applies in the case of fraudulent transfers, vie' think' that the objecting creditors failed to substantiate their charges of the fraudulent concealment o.f assets and the making .of fáfsE’oa'ths, '

)i'J_The',,Qtcler d.f the District Court, is"-reversed, with costs¿ and the cause remanded, with instructions to grant the bankrupt his discharge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. 399, 103 C.C.A. 545, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-howard-ca2-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack