Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In re NATHAN, 1928 — 29 F.2d 432 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
In re NATHAN
29 F.2d 432·United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania·1928
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re NATHAN.
District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
October 15, 1928.
No. 12584.
Jos. W. Nelson, of Mercer, Pa., and B. H. Marks, of Farrell, Pa., for bankrupt.
Wallace C. Leffingwell, of Sharon, Pa., for trustee.
[MAJORITY — SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.]
SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
This case now comes before the court on exceptions to the report o£*J. R. W. Baker, referee in bankruptcy, as special master, to whom the case was referred to take testimony and make report thereof to the court of his findings of fact, together with his recommendations in favor of, or against, the discharge of the bankrupt.
We have considered these exceptions and are of the opinion that they must be sustained, because it does not appear, in connection with the report of the special master recoramending against the discharge, that there was any actual testimony taken before the referee as special master upon the issue submitted to him. He has apparently based his findings entirely upon the records of the bankruptcy case had before him as referee. While the courts have held that testimony of the bankrupt may be considered against him in determining right to a discharge (Shaffer v. Koblegard Co. [C. C. A.] 183 F. 71; In re Malschiek [D. C.] 217 F. 492); we are not certain, from the report of the referee and the record before us, that there was any formal offering of this testimony by the persons objecting to the discharge in support of their action.
In order to obtain a full and proper hearing of the objections to this discharge, we sustain the exceptions of the special master, who has died, and refer the case to the present referee as special master to take testimony upon the specification of objections to the bankrupt’s discharge and to report his findings to the court. An order may be submitted accordingly.