Wiener

N.D. Ohio

Wiener

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 356, 1923 WL 1639, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2001

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedFebruary 9, 1923

DocketNo. 7918

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 356 (Wiener) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wiener, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 356, 1923 WL 1639, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2001 (N.D. Ohio 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTENHAVER, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This case came before the District Court upon] application to confirm the composition of 25% otí fered by a bankrupt. The report of the Special; Master showed that the estate could pay 35%, and! refused the composition. Various objections were/ filed to the Master’s report. The grounds of objeei tion were: 1. That the composition was against the) best interests of the creditors. 2. That the bank-i Tupf had been guilty of acts and had failed to per-] form duties which would be a bar to his discharge.] 3. That the offer and its acceptance were not in good/ faith. In sustaining the Master’s findings, the court' held: ]

1. As there was no consideration for the conveyance from the bankrupt to his wife, that property-can be considered as part of the bankrupt’s assets; and therefore the estate can .pay a dividend of over.' 35% as against 25% offered in composition.

2. The bankrupt’s failure to testify honestly cannot be used as a ground of or in support of the'¡ specifications in opposition otherwise than as it bears] upon his credibility as a witness. ]

3.- As the bankrupt is guilty of having made a false - oath in a bankruptcy proceedings, the acceptance of the • Composition is barred by the Bankruptcy Act regardless of whether.or not the offer is financially for the best interests of the creditors or otherwise.

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

WESTENHAVER, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This case came before the District Court upon] application to confirm the composition of 25% otí fered by a bankrupt. The report of the Special; Master showed that the estate could pay 35%, and! refused the composition. Various objections were/ filed to the Master’s report. The grounds of objeei tion were: 1. That the composition was against the) best interests of the creditors. 2. That the bank-i Tupf had been guilty of acts and had failed to per-] form duties which would be a bar to his discharge.] 3. That the offer and its acceptance were not in good/ faith. In sustaining the Master’s findings, the court' held: ]

1. As there was no consideration for the conveyance from the bankrupt to his wife, that property-can be considered as part of the bankrupt’s assets; and therefore the estate can .pay a dividend of over.' 35% as against 25% offered in composition.

2. The bankrupt’s failure to testify honestly cannot be used as a ground of or in support of the'¡ specifications in opposition otherwise than as it bears] upon his credibility as a witness. ]

3.- As the bankrupt is guilty of having made a false - oath in a bankruptcy proceedings, the acceptance of the • Composition is barred by the Bankruptcy Act regardless of whether.or not the offer is financially for the best interests of the creditors or otherwise.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 356, 1923 WL 1639, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 2001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiener-ohnd-1923.