Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 F.1d 178 - In re Garrison

In re Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

149 F. 178 · 1906

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
March 1920
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1920

2 federal appellate · 5 district ·

30190619101920decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on In re McGurn · In re Corn

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The bankrupt’s indebtedness amounts to $21,000. Of the above sum $8,000 is due to merchandise creditors whose names appear upon his books, and $13,000 is due to various persons who at sundry times loaned him money, and none of whose names appear on his books. Amongst the persons referred to are his wife, brother, and. other near relatives. The amount due them is somewhat in excess of $10,000. Somewhat less than $3,000 is due to various friends. The books of the bankrupt contain no entry whatever of the existence of any of the above loans, nor is there any record of the original notes given for said loans, or of the renewal notes made from time to time thereafter; the original notes having been destroyed. The allegation that the bankrupt has failed to keep books of account or records from which his true financial condition might be ascertained is fully and clearly proven. He has not destroyed any of his books. The notes upon which the existing claims are predicated were, for the most part, given during the year 1907. This was the year during which the petition in bankruptcy was filed against him. The destruction of the original notes, whilst natural enough under ordinary circumstances, is not without significance under present conditions. It is contended on behalf of the bankrupt, and with his contention I agree, that the burden is on the objecting creditor to show, not only that the books, as kept, concealed the financial condition of the bankrupt, but also in so keeping the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where a creditor seeks to prevent a discharge, on such ground (failing to keep books), the burden is on him, not only to show that the bankrupt failed to keep books of accounts, but that his omission was with intent to conceal his financial condition.” In re Garrison, 149 Fed. 178 , 79 C. C. A. 126 ; In re Marcus (D. C.) 192 Fed. 743 ; In re Miller, 212 Fed. 920 , 129 C. C. A. 440 ; In re Brockman (D. C) 168 Fed. 1015 ; In re Burstein (D. C.) 160 Fed. 765 ; In re Haskell (D. C.) 164 Fed. 301 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.