Siebert v. Dahlberg

Eighth Circuit

Siebert v. Dahlberg

218 F. 793, 134 C.C.A. 460, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1604

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 10, 1914

DocketNo. 3975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 218 F. 793 (Siebert v. Dahlberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Siebert v. Dahlberg, 218 F. 793, 134 C.C.A. 460, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1604 (8th Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by Siebert, a voluntary bankrupt, from a limitation of the order discharging him from his debts. More than six years previously he had been adjudged a bankrupt in- a like proceeding in another jurisdiction, but failed to apply for and obtain a discharge within the time limited by the Bankruptcy Act. In the present case the trial court held that this failure to apply for and obtain a discharge operated as a decree by default that he was not entitled to it, and therefore as res judicata in respect of the debts then scheduled and provable. It accordingly qualified its order by excepting them. Whether the bankrupt had committed an act which barred his discharge or whether the debts in question were qf such a nature as to exempt them was not affirmatively determined in the first proceeding. The trial court attached that consequence solely because the bankrupt failed to move to a discharge.

It is argued that the failure was equivalent to a dismissal without prejudice, leaving the bankrupt free to renew his effort in a subsequent proceeding. There is force in the argument, but it is foreclosed in this court. Kuntz v. Young, 65 C. C. A. 477, 131 Fed. 719; Romine v. Miller, 89 C. C. A. 664, 163 Fed. 1022. The authorities generally are the same way. See In re Kuffler, 80 C. C. A. 508, 151 Fed. 12; Id. (D. C.) 144 Fed. 445; In re Silverman, 85 C. C. A. 224, 157 Fed. 675; Pollet v. Cosel, 103 C. C. A. 68, 179 Fed. 488, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1164; In re Bacon, 113 C. C. A. 358, 193 Fed. 34; In re Weintraub (D. C.) 133 Fed. 1000; In re Elby (D. C.) 157 Fed. 935; In re Bramlett (D. C.) 161 Fed. 588; In re Schnabel (D. C.) 166 Fed. 383; In re Von Borries (D. C.) 168 Fed. 718; In re Pullian (D. C.) 171 Fed. 595; In re Stone (D. C.) 172 Fed. 947; In re Levenstein (D. C.) 180 Fed. 957; In re Westbrook (D. C.) 186 Fed. 414.

The order is affirmed.

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by Siebert, a voluntary bankrupt, from a limitation of the order discharging him from his debts. More than six years previously he had been adjudged a bankrupt in- a like proceeding in another jurisdiction, but failed to apply for and obtain a discharge within the time limited by the Bankruptcy Act. In the present case the trial court held that this failure to apply for and obtain a discharge operated as a decree by default that he was not entitled to it, and therefore as res judicata in respect of the debts then scheduled and provable. It accordingly qualified its order by excepting them. Whether the bankrupt had committed an act which barred his discharge or whether the debts in question were qf such a nature as to exempt them was not affirmatively determined in the first proceeding. The trial court attached that consequence solely because the bankrupt failed to move to a discharge.

It is argued that the failure was equivalent to a dismissal without prejudice, leaving the bankrupt free to renew his effort in a subsequent proceeding. There is force in the argument, but it is foreclosed in this court. Kuntz v. Young, 65 C. C. A. 477, 131 Fed. 719; Romine v. Miller, 89 C. C. A. 664, 163 Fed. 1022. The authorities generally are the same way. See In re Kuffler, 80 C. C. A. 508, 151 Fed. 12; Id. (D. C.) 144 Fed. 445; In re Silverman, 85 C. C. A. 224, 157 Fed. 675; Pollet v. Cosel, 103 C. C. A. 68, 179 Fed. 488, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1164; In re Bacon, 113 C. C. A. 358, 193 Fed. 34; In re Weintraub (D. C.) 133 Fed. 1000; In re Elby (D. C.) 157 Fed. 935; In re Bramlett (D. C.) 161 Fed. 588; In re Schnabel (D. C.) 166 Fed. 383; In re Von Borries (D. C.) 168 Fed. 718; In re Pullian (D. C.) 171 Fed. 595; In re Stone (D. C.) 172 Fed. 947; In re Levenstein (D. C.) 180 Fed. 957; In re Westbrook (D. C.) 186 Fed. 414.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F. 793, 134 C.C.A. 460, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siebert-v-dahlberg-ca8-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack