U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1944

In re Roe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided December 14, 1944 · Fake, Goodrich, Lin, McLaugh

146 F.2d 266; 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Henry W. Parker, of New York City (John I. O’Neill, of Jersey City, N. J., on the brief), for appellant., Albert Freeman, of Newark, N. J. (Bernard Hellring, of Newark, N. J., of counsel; Coult, Satz, Morse & Coult, of Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

In re: Money Centers of America, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 2020)
In re Haydu (District Court, E.D. New York 1952)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

In this case a creditor of the bankrupt claims error on the part of the District Court of New Jersey in affirming an or*267der of the referee discharging the bankrupt over the creditor’s objections. The creditor claims that the discharge should not have been granted because the bankrupt committed an offense punishable by imprisonment, § 14, sub. c, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c, by having made a false path, § 29, sub. b, 11 U.S.C.A. § 52, sub. b. Whether the bankrupt was guilty of conscious falsification is a question of fact. Creditor claimed he was, in one instance for failing to disclose an interest in an exempt Pension Fund among his assets and, secondly, in failing to give a correct disclosure of his indebtedness in applying for credit. The referee and the District Court decided against the creditor’s contentions. We cannot say that this conclusion was clearly erroneous and the order appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.