Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

157 F. 675

Docket No. 44.

In re Silverman

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 7, 1907.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1907-11-07

<p>Bankruptcy — Failure to Apply fob Discharge — Second Proceeding.</p> <p>A bankrupt who has failed to apply for his discharge within the time limited by Bankr. Act 1898, e. 541, § 14a, 30 Stat. 550 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3427], cannot thereafter file a second petition, and obtain a discharge from the debts which were scheduled and provable in the previous bankruptcy.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Kuntz v. Young · In re Fiegenbaum · In re Weintraub

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1907-11-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 1949

4 federal appellate · 3 district ·

5019071910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1Bankruptcy — Failure to Apply fob Discharge — Second Proceeding.

¶2A bankrupt who has failed to apply for his discharge within the time limited by Bankr. Act 1898, e. 541, § 14a, 30 Stat. 550 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3427], cannot thereafter file a second petition, and obtain a discharge from the debts which were scheduled and provable in the previous bankruptcy.

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

¶4H. A. Brand, for petitioner.

¶5W. T. Kohn, for respondent.

¶6Before EACOMBE, COXE, ánd NOYES, Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM.

¶8The question involved in this proceeding is whether a bankrupt who has failed to apply .for his discharge within the time limited by. section 14 of the act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. 550, c. 541 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3427]), can thereafter file a second petition, and obtain a discharge from the debts which were scheduled and provable in the previous bankruptcy. The' question has been so frequently answered in the negative that we deem it unnecessary to add anything to what the courts.,have said on the subject.., Kuntz v. Young, 12 Am. Bankr. Rep. 505, 131 Fed. 719, 65 C. C. A. 477; In re Weintraub (D. C.) 13 Am. Bankr. Rep. 711, 133 Fed. 1000; In re Kuffler (D. C.) 144 Fed. 445. Our own views, though upon a somewhat different state of facts, will be found in Re Fiegenbaum, 121 Fed. 69, 57 C. C. A. 409. In that case we said:

“The bankrupt is not entitled to prosecute proceedings for a discharge, the debts and assets being the same as in the former case, and therefore he should not be permitted to begin such proceedings.”

¶9The order is affirmed.

/157/f1d/675 · .json · Public domain