In re Shorer

D. Connecticut

In re Shorer

96 F. 90, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 313

CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut

DecidedMay 15, 1899

DocketNo. 69

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 F. 90 (In re Shorer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Shorer, 96 F. 90, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 313 (D. Conn. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The opposition to the petition for a discharge was based on the ground that, long prior to the passage of the bankruptcy act, the bankrupt had, with fraudulent intent, concealed his financial condition, and destroyed or concealed his books of account, etc. This is insufficient. In re Stark, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 232, 96 Fed. 88; In re Holtz, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 204.

The referee does not find that the bankrupt, since the passage of the bankruptcy act, has destroyed or concealed said books, except in so far as might-be inf erred, from certain facts, the most important of which are that the books used by him in his business were in 1897 transferred to his brother-in-law, who purchased his business, and that said brother-in-law, William Froelich, is now residing at New Haven, and that no evidence was produced of a request that he produce said books, and said Froelich was not called as a witness for either side. This finding is insufficient to show a fraudulent concealment or destruction of books. The discharge is granted.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The opposition to the petition for a discharge was based on the ground that, long prior to the passage of the bankruptcy act, the bankrupt had, with fraudulent intent, concealed his financial condition, and destroyed or concealed his books of account, etc. This is insufficient. In re Stark, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 232, 96 Fed. 88; In re Holtz, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 204.

The referee does not find that the bankrupt, since the passage of the bankruptcy act, has destroyed or concealed said books, except in so far as might-be inf erred, from certain facts, the most important of which are that the books used by him in his business were in 1897 transferred to his brother-in-law, who purchased his business, and that said brother-in-law, William Froelich, is now residing at New Haven, and that no evidence was produced of a request that he produce said books, and said Froelich was not called as a witness for either side. This finding is insufficient to show a fraudulent concealment or destruction of books. The discharge is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. 90, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shorer-ctd-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack