In re Wright
Opinion of the Court
The creditors, Knowles & Foster, cannot be allowed to examine the bankrupt to prove the nature of the transaction out of which the indebtness due to them arose, and that such indebtedness was created by the false, and fraudulent representations of the bankrupt and his late partnership, for the purpose of showing that the debt cannot be discharged under the proceeding in bankruptcy. The examination proposed is wholly irrelevant. The question of fraud in the creation of the debt cannot be litigated in these proceedings. A debt which is, by section 33 of the act, excepted from the operation of a discharge, as is a debt created by the fraud of the bankrupt, can be collected notwithstanding the discharge.
The question whether the discharge affects the debt in question can only arise and be determined by the parties in a suit prosecuted to collect the debt, in which the discharge, after it shall have been granted, shall be pleaded or set up as a bar to a recovery. There is nothing in the proof of debt in this case which can in any manner conclude or prejudice either party in any suit-pending in any other tribunal, so far as regards the issue of fraud in the contracting of the debt. The creditors cannot be prejudiced by proving their debt, if it was in fact a debt created by fraud, for section 33 of the act expressly saves all their rights, even though they prove their debt. Nor, e converso, can any thing in the proof of debt, affect or conclude the bankrupt on any
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.