In re Young

Decided June 25, 1908.)

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court · decided 1908-06-25

<p>Bankruptcy — Opposition to Discharge — Entry of Appearance.</p> <p>Under general orders in bankruptcy No. 32 (89 Eed. xiii, 32 C. C. A. xiii) a creditor is not entitled to enter an appearance for the purpose of filing objections to a bankrupt’s discharge after the return day named in the order to show cause, at least without good cause shown for the delay.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on In re Ginsburg · In re Grant

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1908-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1997 · most notably Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc. v. Hicks (1932), Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Gay Cottons, United States of America and Shalom Baby Wear (1969)

8 federal appellate · 11 district ·

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 — Opposition to Discharge — Entry of Appearance.

¶2Under general orders in bankruptcy No. 32 (89 Eed. xiii, 32 C. C. A. xiii) a creditor is not entitled to enter an appearance for the purpose of filing objections to a bankrupt’s discharge after the return day named in the order to show cause, at least without good cause shown for the delay.

¶3In Bankruptcy. On motion to dismiss specifications of objection to bankrupt’s discharge.

¶4J. Howard Weatherby, for bankrupt.

¶5Robert J. Byron and Sidney R. I-Crauss, for objecting creditors.

¶6J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

¶7Judge Holland has twice decided the question raised by the bankrupt’s motion to dismiss the specifications to his discharge. Following the authority of Re Ginsburg, 130 Fed. 627, 12 Am. Bankr. Rep. 459, and Re Grant (D. C.) 135 Fed. 889, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted.