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.
Bankruptcy
Adolph HANAUER, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. NEW BRUNSWICK TRUST CO. et al.
72 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1934
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
Adolph HANAUER, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. NEW BRUNSWICK TRUST CO. et al.
No. 5143.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
July 13, 1934.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1934.
Louis L. Hendler, of New Brunswick, N. J. (Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N. J., of counsel; Max Mehler, of Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellant.
Paul W. Ewing, of New Brunswick, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below, the petition of the bankrupt for discharge was referred to a referee, who took testimony and reported against the discharge, holding that the bankrupt had made a false statement to the New Brunswick Trust Company, one of the objecting creditors, wherein, in his application for a loan, he had failed to state that he was indebted to his wife in the sum of $9,000'. On exception to such finding, the judge below came to the same conclusion as the referee.
After an examination of the testimony, we are satisfied that the discharge was rightly refused. There is no question he was indebted to his wife, and in the somewhat complicated testimony it is clear that the money wrongfully obtained from the trust company was used by him in part to pay off the indebtedness to his wife.
The judgment below is affirmed.