Mau v. Sampsell

Ninth Circuit

Mau v. Sampsell

185 F.2d 400

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 1950

Docket12546

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 F.2d 400 (Mau v. Sampsell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mau v. Sampsell, 185 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jack Mau appeals from an order denying him discharge in bankruptcy upon the following facts:

The due debt in suit is admitted. A representative of the creditor requested payment, whereupon the debtor addressed a letter to the creditor stating that an existing escrow would soon net him cash in excess of the debt, and requested, in effect, extension of credit until the escrow money was reelased. The creditor withheld taking further action for collection of the debt upon strength of the letter. No such escrow was in existence and the referee in bankruptcy held in effect that the letter was a fraudulent report of appellant’s financial status and was cause for denying discharge of the bankrupt and caused such order to be entered. The district judge affirmed the order. Section 14, sub. c, National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c.

We think the order was proper.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jack Mau appeals from an order denying him discharge in bankruptcy upon the following facts:

The due debt in suit is admitted. A representative of the creditor requested payment, whereupon the debtor addressed a letter to the creditor stating that an existing escrow would soon net him cash in excess of the debt, and requested, in effect, extension of credit until the escrow money was reelased. The creditor withheld taking further action for collection of the debt upon strength of the letter. No such escrow was in existence and the referee in bankruptcy held in effect that the letter was a fraudulent report of appellant’s financial status and was cause for denying discharge of the bankrupt and caused such order to be entered. The district judge affirmed the order. Section 14, sub. c, National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c.

We think the order was proper.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mau-v-sampsell-ca9-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack