In re Reiff

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Reiff

205 F. 399, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1562

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 8, 1913

DocketNo. 4,208

StatusPublished

This text of 205 F. 399 (In re Reiff) 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 Reiff, 205 F. 399, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1562 (E.D. Pa. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

Judge Thompson, of this district, has recently decided, in Re Hockman, 205 Fed. 330, that the amendment of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 839, c. 412, § 6 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1496]) to sectiou 14, subd. “b” (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 550 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3427]), providing:

“ * * * That a trustee shall not interpose objections to a bankrupt’s discharge until he shall be authorized so to do at a meeting of creditors called for that purpose”

—is satisfied if the authority be given at a meeting called by the referee, and that the District Judge is not required himself to issue the call and hold the meeting, or specially to authorize such call and meeting. I not only follow this ruling, but I agree with it, and therefore overrule the bankrupt’s first objection to the specifications filed by the trustee.

The remaining objections attack all the specifications as insufficient; but I cannot assent to the bankrupt’s argument, except as to the fourth. This, I think, should be made more definite, especially because the trustee is evidently in possession of information that will probably [400]*400enable him to be more specific — at least within reasonable limits. He may amend the fourth specification within five days, but in default of such amendment the clerk will mark it dismissed.

The bankrupt's objections to the first three specifications are dismissed; the objections to the fourth are sustained, with leave to amend.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

Judge Thompson, of this district, has recently decided, in Re Hockman, 205 Fed. 330, that the amendment of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 839, c. 412, § 6 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1496]) to sectiou 14, subd. “b” (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 550 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3427]), providing:

“ * * * That a trustee shall not interpose objections to a bankrupt’s discharge until he shall be authorized so to do at a meeting of creditors called for that purpose”

—is satisfied if the authority be given at a meeting called by the referee, and that the District Judge is not required himself to issue the call and hold the meeting, or specially to authorize such call and meeting. I not only follow this ruling, but I agree with it, and therefore overrule the bankrupt’s first objection to the specifications filed by the trustee.

The remaining objections attack all the specifications as insufficient; but I cannot assent to the bankrupt’s argument, except as to the fourth. This, I think, should be made more definite, especially because the trustee is evidently in possession of information that will probably [400]*400enable him to be more specific — at least within reasonable limits. He may amend the fourth specification within five days, but in default of such amendment the clerk will mark it dismissed.

The bankrupt's objections to the first three specifications are dismissed; the objections to the fourth are sustained, with leave to amend.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F. 399, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reiff-paed-1913.

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack