Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 F. Supp. 942

In re Pinkston

U.S. District Court

Decided November 16, 1950

U.S. District Court · decided 1950-11-16

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““This case comes within the provision of Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32 , which provides that the court shall grant the discharge unless satisfied that the bankrupt has ‘failed to keep or preserve books of account or records, from which his financial condition and business transactions might be ascertained, unless the court deems such acts or failure to have been justified under all the circumstances of the case.’ That the books and records were not kept, clearly appears from the fact that, for the period covered by the statements, certain basic information was missing, and that no record whatever was kept for a period of almost four years. The grant of the discharge, therefore, is dependent upon the finding of the court that the failure to keep books was justified ‘under all the circumstances of the case.’ In the determination of this question, it is evident that Congress intended that the district court should exercise a wide discretion, If the facts do not disclose a positive duty to keep the books and records, or, disclosing such a duty, there appears to be sufficient ground to warrant a finding of extenuating circumstances, an order of discharge should not be disturbed on appeal. Conversely, a denial of discharge should not be disturbed unless arbitrary ór clearly unjust. Within this range of sound judicial discretion, the district court must interpret the facts and apply the rules of reasonable conduct in the light of business as well as judicial exp”

quoted by 1 later decision, including In re Stalco TV & Appliance Co.

Relies on Waterloo Distilling Corporation v. United States Various Items of Personal Property · Royal Indemnity Co. v. Cooper · Texas Nat. Bank of Beaumont v. Edson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1950-11-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1975

5 federal appellate ·

30195019601970decided

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 →

ATWELL, Chief Judge.

¶1The trustee filed an objection to the discharge of the bankrupt, ■ on the ground, “that the bankrupt had destroyed, mutilated, falsified, concealed, or, failed to keep books of accounts from which his financial condition and business transactions might be ascertained.

¶2The bankrupt denied the charge, and plead alternatively, “that if it should appear to the court that he has failed to keep complete or adequate books of account, or, during any portion of the .time pertinent hereto,“• then such failure as there may have been, was justified under all. existing, circumstances.”

¶3At a regular hearing, which was suggested-by the court, before the Referee, it appeared that up to 1942 the 'bankrupt, who *943was engaged in a rather extensive insurance business, kept an informative ledger show^ing his business transactions. After that time there was no such accuracy nor detailed bookkeeping.

¶4He kept a little memorandum later on which would point to certain state court records of cáses and judgments in which he was interested.

¶5The judicial discretion to overlook the keeping of accurate books and records as provided by the statute, is for the protection of persons of small and limited transactions.

¶6The Referee has heretofore denied a discharge. That order, the court thought was rather premature and sent the matter back to the Referee for the purpose of hearing the defense to the charge made by the trustee. The trustee’s charge being filed on the day the discharge hearing was set, to-wit, September 6th, the bankrupt had no opportunity to be heard.

¶7Upon the second hearing, the Referee again recommended against a discharge.

¶8The amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 32, 66, allows the Referee or the court to grant a discharge. The practice has been in this division for the court to grant discharges.

¶9His voluntary petition showed total liabilities of $29,563.91, but he listed $77,240.-37 as assets. He listed cash on hand of $52.91. $45.00 of this was used for filing fee, and the balance he appropriated to his personal use, but later handed the amount to the Trustee.

¶10Out of this large schedule of assets, the trustee has been able to secure $188.80, and has not been able to secure even an offer on the remainder. The bankrupt is a salaried man.

¶11A discharge is a matter of right and is addressed to the discretion of the District Court. This right should be liberally construed. It is an unqualified right, but depends upon a compliance by the bankrupt, with the statute.

¶12The old statute included the words, “with Intent to conceal his financial condition”. Those words were omitted in the amendment such as we have it today. This, of course, relates to the failure to keep books. Also, the words, “unless the court, deems such acts or failure to have been justified under all the circumstances of the case”, were added in the amendment.

¶13The burden of proving justification is placed upon the bankrupt. Nix v. Sternberg, 8 Cir., 38 F.2d 611, 613. Certiorari denied, 282 U.S. 838, 51 S.Ct. 282, 75 L.Ed. 744.

¶14The discharge in bankruptcy is a legal right, and the burden is on the objector to establish facts to prevent discharge. Baash-Ross Tool Company v. Stephens, 9 Cir., 73 F.2d 902. The Act must be construed strictly against the objector and liberally in favor of the bankrupt. Royal Indemnity Company v. Cooper, 4 Cir., 26 F.2d 585. Morris Plan v. Henderson, D.C., 57 F.2d 326. In re Horwitz, 7 Cir., 92 F.2d 632; Albinak v. Kuhn, 6 Cir., 149 F.2d 108.

¶15It has already been noticed that the last phrase of the statute provides that “unless the court deems such acts or failure to have been justified under all the circumstances of the case”. That phrase follows wording which includes, “preserve books of account or records, from which his financial condition and business transactions might be ascertained”.

¶16The record shows that up to May, 1942, he did keep a very good set of books. After that his business ceased and such “accounts or records” were memoranda which he turned over to the trustee. That little book disclosed the name of the creditor and the amount of court costs; it being shown that after he went out of business in May, 1942, he then sought to collect what was due him and filed many suits.

¶17It was during this time he began, and, is now, a wage-earner, and not an insurance seller or agent.

¶18It would appear, under this proviso, that the court, within the confines of right and justice, is authorized to decide an act in accordance with what is fair, equitable, and wholesome, as determined by the peculiar circumstances of the case, and as discerned by his personal wisdom and *944experience, guided by the spirit, principles, and analogies of the law, which must be exercised in accordance with a wise, as distinguished from, a mere arbitrary, use of power, and under the law.

¶19Having gone out of business, and with nothing left to do connected therewith, save the collection of many small accounts, of which he kept a memorandum, and which he turned over to the trustee, and which gives sufficient information to identify and find the pending suit and judgment, this clause of the law may find expression in giving it vitality. Texas National Bank of Beaumont v. Edson, 5 Cir., 100 F.2d 789.

¶20Bankrupt should be, and is, discharged.

/93/fsupp/942 · .json · Public domain