Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 F.2d 463

Docket No. 17570.

In re Hatch

Maine District Court

Decided Sept. 18, 1930.

Maine District Court · decided 1930-09-18

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The law governing discharge of bankrupt is for the benefit of honest debtors and should be construed liberally in their favor.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including In re Romano

Relies on In re Jacobs · In re Rice & Reuben

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-09-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1985

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

20193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1See, also, 43 F.(2d) 378.

¶2Frank P. Preti, of Portland, Me., for bankrupt.

¶3A. E. Neal, of Portland, Me., for creditors.

¶4PETERS, District Judge.

¶5Objections to granting a petition for discharge in this ease were referred to a special master, who reported his findings and conclusions together with the testimony taken in the case and recommended that the discharge *464be granted. The matter was heard by me on exceptions to the. master’s report. The objections to the discharge were based upon an allegation that the bankrupt had destroyed, concealed, or failed to keep books of account or records from which his financial condition and business transactions might be ascertained. Under the amended section, that is made by law a ground for refusing a discharge, “unless the Court deems such failure or acts to have been justified, under all the circumstances of the ease.” Bankr. Act § 14 (b), as amended, 11 USCA § 32(b).

¶6 The master has made a very full report in which it appears that the debtor was a journeyman plumber engaged in the business principally of selling his own labor and that of an assistant. He had no stock, of goods and did not keep a set’ of books which would probably satisfy an expert bookkeeper. It also appears that in his schedules he .stated that he had no books. This appears to be an error of his attorney in making out his schedules for which the bankrupt was not responsible, because immediately upon his bankruptcy he delivered all his books and papers to the trustee, including canceled checks as requested for the preceding four months.

¶7A previously elaborate set of books which had been set up for the bankrupt by expert bookkeepers some years before had not been used by him and were evidently useless and too cumbersome for his small business. The master has found that the bankrupt’s memorandum book of receipts and disbursements was kept up to the time of bankruptcy. He had destroyed stubs 'of his cheek books but had preserved the cheeks. It seems that he always destroyed the stubs, and there is nothing significant in that action.

¶8The master especially commends the demeanor and apparent frankness of the bankrupt in his testimony, and finds that such lack of complete books as existed was entirely justified under all the circumstances of the case. That finding was clearly necessary from the evidence, and I can see no reason for disturbing it. The law governing the discharge is for the benefit and assistance of honest debtors and should be construed liberally in their favor. In re Jacobs (C. C. A.) 241 F. 620.

¶9The exceptions to the report are overruled, and the discharge may be granted.

/43/f2d/463 · .json · Public domain