Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 F. 833

Docket No. 232.

In re Salsbury

New York Northern District Court

Decided February 10, 1902.)

New York Northern District Court · decided 1902-02-10

<p>Bankruptcy — Discharge—Fai.se Oath.</p> <p>Clear and convincing- proof is required to sustain objections to a bankrupt’s discharge on the ground that he omitted property from his schedules and made a false oath thereto.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1915

2 district ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on In re Eaton · In re Howden

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1902-02-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bankruptcy — Discharge—Fai.se Oath.

¶2Clear and convincing- proof is required to sustain objections to a bankrupt’s discharge on the ground that he omitted property from his schedules and made a false oath thereto.

¶3In Bankruptcy. O11 application for discharge.

¶4G. S. & H. L. Hooker, for bankrupt.

¶5James A. Wood, for creditor.

¶6COXE, District Judge.

¶7I have read the report of the referee and have examined the papers submitted. I agree with the referee that the objections to the discharge have not. been established. The questions discussed have heretofore been decided by me in analogous circumstances. In addition to the cases cited by the referee the attention of counsel is called to the following: In re Howden (D. C.) 111 Fed. 723; In re Eaton (D. C.) 110 Fed. 731. In these cases the objections principally relied on by the objecting creditor were considered, upon somewhat similar facts, and disposed of adversely to the creditor’s contention.

¶8The report is confirmed and the discharge is granted.

/113/f1d/833 · .json · Public domain