U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1922

Arenz v. Astoria Sav. Bank

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 19, 1922 · Dietrich, Hunt, Morrow

281 F. 530; 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2112

Counsel

Sidney Teiser, of Portland, Or., for appellant., W. W. Banks, of Portland, Or., and G. C. Fulton and A. C. Fulton, both of Astoria, Or., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Imperial Millwork, Inc. v. Steinberg (In re Steinberg) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts 1980)
Feynman v. Rosenthal (2d Cir. 1935)
Security Building & Loan Ass'n v. Spurlock (9th Cir. 1933)
Houchin Sales Co. v. Angert (8th Cir. 1926)
Withers Bros. v. Foley (9th Cir. 1925)
Lerner v. Gladstone (3d Cir. 1924)
Swender v. Empie (9th Cir. 1924)
Climenson v. Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. (9th Cir. 1922)

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

HUNT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1, 2] Under the well-recognized rule, whether there was a fraudulent intent on the part of the bankrupt to dispose of his property in such a way as to keep it beyond the reach of his creditors was largely a question of fact. Dean v. Davis, 242 U. S. 438, 37 Sup. Ct. 130, 61 L. Ed. 419; Pirvitz v. Pithan, 194 Fed. 403, 114 C. C. A. 365. A reading of the record satisfies us that the master and the District Court were justified in concluding that at-the time of the sale of the stock Arenz intended to file a petition in bankruptcy-, and that his purpose in selling was to avoid the inclusion of all of his property in his schedules to be filed in the bankruptcy proceedings. The fact that the stock was sold for $100 is not of importance, for the essential question is, not the amount involved, but the purpose which Arenz had in mind when he made the sale.

[3] The special master having had the advantage of hearing the bankrupt testify, and the findings having been approved by the District Court, the conclusions of fact will not be disturbed, unless clearly erroneous. Poff v. Adams et al., 226 Fed. 187, 141 C. C. A. 185; Remmers v. Merchants’-Laclede Nat. Bank, 173 Fed. 484, 97 C. C. A. 490; In re Breitling, 133 Fed. 146, 66 C. C. A. 212.

The order denying a discharge is affirmed.

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