In re Taylor
In re Taylor
Opinion of the Court
(orally). It appears from the report of the master that at the time the schedules were hied the bankrupt owed state and county taxes, $40, and for unsecured, claims, $9,763.84.
It is alleged by the creditors that while a bankrupt, and within less than four months immediately preceding the filing of his petition, he voluntarily sold a large amount of his property, of the value of $8,-000; that he failed to keep books of account or records, from which his condition might be ascertained; and that he also made a false oath in reference to his bankruptcy schedules, in that he testified under oath that the schedules contained an account of all of his estate, both real and personal, a statement widely variant from the veracities of the record.
The evidence reported by the special master disclosed the fact that Taylor had been in the mercantile business in previous years, and that in the fall of 1906 he sold out his mercantile business to one J. C. Sapp. For this he obtained between $1,100 and $1,200 in mules and corn and land, and after selling out his property he only owed about $200. That was in the fall of 1906. On the 1st of February, 1907, he again entered into business, and bought much merchandise between the latter date and the date on which the bankruptcy proceeding was filed against him. During the 10 months he was last engaged in business, he purchased and disposed of merchandise and guano in the sum of $9,763; and at the time that the trustee took possession of the assets none of the merchandise was found in the bankrupt’s possession, and only about $500 worth of notes and accounts. In addition to the amounts he received from the goods bought, for which his creditors were not paid, he sold mules owned by him in the fall of 1907 for the aggregate sum of $1,320. He also sold numerous pieces of realty, for which he received $1,070, which makes a total of cash received from the sales of mules and land of $2,390, thus making the live stock, guano, merchandise, and land aggregate over $12,000 turned into actual cash during the fall of 1907.
From these facts, the master, in my opinion, very justifiably reaches the conclusion that Taylor has sold a large part of his property, the values which resulted from this business, and has concealed the proceeds. It is also true that his wife returned no property for taxation anterior to these occurrences; but during the year 1907 she purchased 100 acres of land from one John Walter, for which she paid $500, the purchase price being $1,600. She also purchased other lands, amounting to $900. The evidence is not satisfactory, in the opinion of the special master, as to where this money came from, although the bankrupt testified that his wife received $3,800 from the sale of a place bought with money inherited from her father, and that she had kept that sum for a number of years in a little zinc trunk in her house. This testimony does not appear to the court to have very much probative value. These sums not hitherto disclosed by the wife are suggestive. There, too, was a large amount of cotton seed purchased, for which he made no account. His gin burned up in 1907, and he collected insurance on the property. After the gin burned, he bought more cotton, and kept no record of it. He did keep books, according to the report of the special master; but he declined to state, or failed to state, to whom he shipped the cotton at either Dublin or Eastman. He sold his stock of merchandise at a sacrifice, beginning about the
Take the case all together, it is one of the most remarkable and deliberate cases of fraudulent concealment of property by a bankrupt that has come to the "attention of the court. The conclusions of the special master, in his clear and valuable opinion, are held to be correct. The statement of learned counsel that there is no evidence to support those conclusions, without any effort to point out error on the part of the master, is not satisfactory.
For these reasons, the court feels obliged to sustain the report of the special master, and to direct that the discharge be refused.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In re TAYLOR
- Status
- Published