In re Steinberg

Second Circuit

In re Steinberg

143 F.2d 942, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 1944

DocketNo. 313

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 143 F.2d 942 (In re Steinberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Steinberg, 143 F.2d 942, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3224 (2d Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

The referee’s finding that the bankrupt “knowingly” made a false oath binds us, for the referee saw and heard the bankrupt testify and we cannot, therefore, go behind his conclusions as to credibility. The only question is whether the oath was “fraudulently made.” We would be inclined to say no, if this were a case of first impression; as the bankrupt had no assets, the omission of the claims of his relatives could not have been designed to prefer them, and it is difficult to perceive any fraudulent purpose, either in those omissions or the failure to include the claim for taxes. Perhaps the omission of the insurance agent’s claim shows a fraudulent purpose. But we need not consider that question. For we bow to the precedents which, in practical effect, have read the word “fraudulently” out of the statute by the use of the phrase, “an intentional untruth in a matter material to the issue which is itself material.” In re Slocum, 2 Cir., 22 F.2d 282, 285; In re Zoffer, 2 Cir., 211 F. 936; In re Marshall, 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 209. Under those authorities it is enough that the false oath here was knowingly made.

Affirmed.

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

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

The referee’s finding that the bankrupt “knowingly” made a false oath binds us, for the referee saw and heard the bankrupt testify and we cannot, therefore, go behind his conclusions as to credibility. The only question is whether the oath was “fraudulently made.” We would be inclined to say no, if this were a case of first impression; as the bankrupt had no assets, the omission of the claims of his relatives could not have been designed to prefer them, and it is difficult to perceive any fraudulent purpose, either in those omissions or the failure to include the claim for taxes. Perhaps the omission of the insurance agent’s claim shows a fraudulent purpose. But we need not consider that question. For we bow to the precedents which, in practical effect, have read the word “fraudulently” out of the statute by the use of the phrase, “an intentional untruth in a matter material to the issue which is itself material.” In re Slocum, 2 Cir., 22 F.2d 282, 285; In re Zoffer, 2 Cir., 211 F. 936; In re Marshall, 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 209. Under those authorities it is enough that the false oath here was knowingly made.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F.2d 942, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-steinberg-ca2-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack