In re Roe

Third Circuit

In re Roe

146 F.2d 266, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1944

DocketNo. 8657

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 F.2d 266 (In re Roe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F.2d 266, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roe-ca3-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack