In re Hausman

Decided March 12, 1903.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1903-03-12

<p>1. Bankruptcy — Failure of Bankrupt to Comply with Order — Punishment for Contempt.</p> <p>Before punishing a bankrupt for contempt because of his failure to comply with an order, the court should give him an opportunity to prove. his inability to do so.</p>

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1903-03-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1963

1 district · 2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Bankruptcy — Failure of Bankrupt to Comply with Order — Punishment for Contempt.

¶2Before punishing a bankrupt for contempt because of his failure to comply with an order, the court should give him an opportunity to prove. his inability to do so.

¶3Petition for Revision of the Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York in Bankruptcy.

¶4Stillman F. Kneeland, for petitioner.

¶5Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for respondent.

¶6Before WARRACE, RACOMBE, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM.

¶8In affirming the order of the court below, we do not consider the question whether the bankrupt should be punished for contempt in the event of failing to comply with the order, as that question, although the one principally argued, is not here. If it should be sought to punish him for contempt, the court below will doubtless give him an opportunity to prove his inability to comply with the order.