In re Pierce

103 F. 64, 1900 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 298
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York
DecidedJuly 20, 1900
DocketNo. 80
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 103 F. 64 (In re Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.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 Pierce, 103 F. 64, 1900 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 298 (N.D.N.Y. 1900).

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

After a careful examination tbe referee bas found that tbe evidence is insufficient to warrant a finding that tbe bankrupt knowingly and fraudulently concealed property from bis trustee. I incline to the opinion that tbe conclusion of tbe referee in this regard is correct. If criticism of this condition of affairs is to be 'indulged in it should be directed not against tbe judicial but tbe legislative branch of tbe government. It cannot be disputed that tbe present act permits a discharge no matter bow preferential and fraudulent have been tbe transfers of tbe bankrupt so long as bis acts do not amount to a fraudulent concealment from bis trustee of property belonging to bis estate. Whether this should be so there may be serious doubt, that it is so there is no doubt. Tbe proof here [65]*65fails to establish, a case under section 29b, subd. 1, Bankr. Act. The specification filed by ihe objecting creditor, now opposing the discharge, is, in iny judgment, insufficient to present this issue, or any issue. The objection charging concealment omits the essential and fundamental allegation that the acts were done “knowingly and fraudulently.” The objection that the bankrupt failed to keep books is not mentioned at all. Should the objecting creditor desire to proceed further in this matter he may amend the objections numbered 1 and 2 by inserting (he necessary allegation as above indicated and he may verify the specification nunc pro tunc. Ao hardship can result as the evidence has been taken and considered upon the theory that the specification was sufficient. It would be unfair, however, to permit an objection presenting the issue as to the failure to keep books to be made at this late day. The discharge will in no way preclude the trustee from recovering property fraudulently transferred. The report of the referee is confirmed and the discharge is granted.

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

Related

Leventhal v. Spillman
234 F. Supp. 207 (E.D. New York, 1964)
Bennett v. Erwin
189 A. 675 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Harkins v. Holt
169 So. 481 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Scales v. A. L. Stone & Son
22 F.2d 676 (Fifth Circuit, 1927)
McMullen v. Zabawski
283 F. 552 (E.D. Michigan, 1922)
In re Agnew
225 F. 650 (N.D. New York, 1915)
Stephenson v. Bird
53 So. 92 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
In re Griffin Bros.
154 F. 537 (S.D. Alabama, 1907)
Hunt v. Doyal
57 S.E. 489 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
In re Bromley
152 F. 493 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1907)
In re Knaszak
151 F. 503 (W.D. New York, 1907)
In re Levey
133 F. 572 (N.D. New York, 1904)
In re Patterson
121 F. 921 (N.D. New York, 1903)
In re Bemis
104 F. 672 (N.D. New York, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 F. 64, 1900 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pierce-nynd-1900.