In re Bromley

Decided February 28, 1907.)

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court · decided 1907-02-28

Bankruptcy — Objections to Discharge — Amendment. Specifications of objection to the discharge of a bankrupt which are in the language of the statute without more, and contain no statement of facts, are not amendable. [Ed. Note. — -For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 710.J

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1929

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on In re Pierce · In re Mudd · In re Peck

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1907-02-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bankruptcy — Objections to Discharge — Amendment.

¶2Specifications of objection to the discharge of a bankrupt which are in the language of the statute without more, and contain no statement of facts, are not amendable.

¶3[Ed. Note. — -For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 710.J

¶4In Bankruptcy. On petition to amend.

¶5Morgan & Lewis and R. Stuart Smith, for petitioner.

¶6E. Cooper Shapley, for bankrupt.

¶7HOLLAND, District Judge.

¶8The petition of W. F. Bay. Stewart for leave to amend specifications of objection to the discharge of the bankrupt should be refused. The original specifications - were in the language of the act, and nothing more. There is no statement of fact on which an amendment can be grafted, and leave 'to amend should not be granted where only the words of the statute are used. In re Pierce (D. C.) 103 Fed. 64; In re Mudd (D. C.) 105 Fed. 348; In re Peck (D. C.) 120 Fed. 972.

¶9It is so ordered.