In re Roe

146 F.2d 266, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided December 14, 1944·No. No. 8657·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case a creditor of the bankrupt claims error on the part of the District Court of New Jersey in affirming an or[267]*267der of the referee discharging the bankrupt over the creditor’s objections. The creditor claims that the discharge should not have been granted because the bankrupt committed an offense punishable by imprisonment, § 14, sub. c, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c, by having made a false path, § 29, sub. b, 11 U.S.C.A. § 52, sub. b. Whether the bankrupt was guilty of conscious falsification is a question of fact. Creditor claimed he was, in one instance for failing to disclose an interest in an exempt Pension Fund among his assets and, secondly, in failing to give a correct disclosure of his indebtedness in applying for credit. The referee and the District Court decided against the creditor’s contentions. We cannot say that this conclusion was clearly erroneous and the order appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

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

In re Roe, 146 F.2d 266, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288 (3d Cir. 1944).

146 F.2d 266 (In re Roe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Haydu
105 F. Supp. 859 (E.D. New York, 1952)