Bankruptcy
In re SHORER
96 F. 90·United States District Court for the District of Connecticut·1899
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 SHORER.
(District Court, D. Connecticut.
May 15, 1899.)
No. 69.
1. Bankruptcy — Opposition to Discharge — Keeping Books.
The destruction or concealment of books of account by a debtor, with intent to conceal his financial condition, is no ground for refusing to grant him a discharge in bankruptcy, unless committed since the enactment of the bankruptcy law.
2. Same.
Evidence that the books of account used by the bankrupt in iiis business in 1897 were at that time transferred to his brother-in-law, who bought the business, and that the latter, though residing within the state, had not been requested to produce the books or called as a witness for either side in the bankruptcy proceedings, held not sufficient to show a fraudulent concealment or destruction of books by the debtor since the enactment of the bankruptcy law, such as to forfeit his right to a discharge.
In Bankruptcy. On application of the bankrupt for discharge.
Warren H. Bristol, for the bankrupt.
Watrous & Day, for opposing creditors.
[MAJORITY — TOWNSEND, District Judge.]
TOWNSEND, District Judge.
The opposition to the petition for a discharge was based on the ground that, long prior to the passage of the bankruptcy act, the bankrupt had, with fraudulent intent, concealed his financial condition, and destroyed or concealed his books of account, etc. This is insufficient. In re Stark, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 232, 96 Fed. 88; In re Holtz, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 204.
The referee does not find that the bankrupt, since the passage of the bankruptcy act, has destroyed or concealed said books, except in so far as might-be inf erred, from certain facts, the most important of which are that the books used by him in his business were in 1897 transferred to his brother-in-law, who purchased his business, and that said brother-in-law, William Froelich, is now residing at New Haven, and that no evidence was produced of a request that he produce said books, and said Froelich was not called as a witness for either side. This finding is insufficient to show a fraudulent concealment or destruction of books. The discharge is granted.