In re Luber

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Luber

152 F. 492, 1907 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 333

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 8, 1907

DocketNo. 2,392

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 152 F. 492 (In re Luber) 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 Luber, 152 F. 492, 1907 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 333 (E.D. Pa. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

HÓERAND, District Judge.

The averment in the involuntary petition,in bankruptcy in this case was that the alleged bankrupts conveyed, transferred, concealed, and removed merchandise with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud their creditors.

In the investigation of questions of fraud, as a rule, great latitude is allowed in the admission of evidence, in order that the jury may be able to determine from all the circumstances whether the transaction was fraudulent or not. Questions of fraud can scarcely ever be proven by direct evidence, hence the necessity for the admission of all the circumstances fairly connected with the transaction. All the evidence to which objection was made was clearly admissible, nor can I agree with the exceptants that there was error in the charge of the court.

The motion and reasons for a new trial are overruled.

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

HÓERAND, District Judge.

The averment in the involuntary petition,in bankruptcy in this case was that the alleged bankrupts conveyed, transferred, concealed, and removed merchandise with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud their creditors.

In the investigation of questions of fraud, as a rule, great latitude is allowed in the admission of evidence, in order that the jury may be able to determine from all the circumstances whether the transaction was fraudulent or not. Questions of fraud can scarcely ever be proven by direct evidence, hence the necessity for the admission of all the circumstances fairly connected with the transaction. All the evidence to which objection was made was clearly admissible, nor can I agree with the exceptants that there was error in the charge of the court.

The motion and reasons for a new trial are overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F. 492, 1907 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-luber-paed-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack