In re Sideman

E.D. New York

In re Sideman

32 F. Supp. 574, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3144

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedFebruary 24, 1940

DocketNo. 36359

StatusPublished

This text of 32 F. Supp. 574 (In re Sideman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.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 Sideman, 32 F. Supp. 574, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3144 (E.D.N.Y. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

The. objecting creditor seeks to review the order of the Referee made on November 15, 1939, directing that the specifications of objections be dismissed and discharging the bankrupt.

The bankrupt received a loan upon a false financial statement. She failed to disclose the following creditors: Morris Plan Company, $77 and Ludwig Bauman & Co., $43.55. She obtained credit to the extent of $29.33 based upon the false statement. The bankrupt claims that, although the statement was false, credit was not extended to her but to her husband, based upon the financial statement.

It is quite immaterial who received the payment of the money. If the payment was made to anyone as a result of a false financial statement, the bankrupt is not entitled to a discharge. See In re Ernst, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 760, 761, in which the Court decided: “It is of no moment that one of the loans was paid before bankruptcy. Josephs v. Powell & Campbell, 2 Cir., 213 F. 627; nor that the bank is not opposing the discharge; In re Weinstein, D.C., 34 F.2d 964; nor that the bankrupt did not himself receive the proceeds of the ioans. In re Dresser & Co., D.C., 144 F. 318. Affirmed, 2 Cir., 145 F. 1021.”

The order granting the discharge will be reversed and discharge denied.

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

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

The. objecting creditor seeks to review the order of the Referee made on November 15, 1939, directing that the specifications of objections be dismissed and discharging the bankrupt.

The bankrupt received a loan upon a false financial statement. She failed to disclose the following creditors: Morris Plan Company, $77 and Ludwig Bauman & Co., $43.55. She obtained credit to the extent of $29.33 based upon the false statement. The bankrupt claims that, although the statement was false, credit was not extended to her but to her husband, based upon the financial statement.

It is quite immaterial who received the payment of the money. If the payment was made to anyone as a result of a false financial statement, the bankrupt is not entitled to a discharge. See In re Ernst, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 760, 761, in which the Court decided: “It is of no moment that one of the loans was paid before bankruptcy. Josephs v. Powell & Campbell, 2 Cir., 213 F. 627; nor that the bank is not opposing the discharge; In re Weinstein, D.C., 34 F.2d 964; nor that the bankrupt did not himself receive the proceeds of the ioans. In re Dresser & Co., D.C., 144 F. 318. Affirmed, 2 Cir., 145 F. 1021.”

The order granting the discharge will be reversed and discharge denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. Supp. 574, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sideman-nyed-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack