Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

185 F.2d 400

Docket No. 12546.

Mau v. Sampsell

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 17, 1950.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1950-11-17

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1967

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1950-11-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Quittner, Stutman & Shutan, Los Angeles, Cal. (Jack Tenner, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellant

¶2'Craig, Weller & Laugharn, Los Angeles, Cal. (Thomas S. Tobin, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellee.

¶3Before STEPHENS, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Jack Mau appeals from an order denying him discharge in bankruptcy upon the following facts:

¶6The due debt in suit is admitted. A representative of the creditor requested payment, whereupon the debtor addressed a letter to the creditor stating that an existing escrow would soon net him cash in excess of the debt, and requested, in effect, extension of credit until the escrow money was reelased. The creditor withheld taking further action for collection of the debt upon strength of the letter. No such escrow was in existence and the referee in bankruptcy held in effect that the letter was a fraudulent report of appellant’s financial status and was cause for denying discharge of the bankrupt and caused such order to be entered. The district judge affirmed the order. Section 14, sub. c, National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c.

¶7We think the order was proper.

¶8Affirmed.

/185/f2d/400 · .json · Public domain