Legal Opinion

In Re Maloof

District Court, N.D. Georgia

Decided November 13, 1924No. 1210PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIBLEY, District Judge.

The special master reports that the alleged false statement of assets and liabilities on which goods were obtained from Daniel Miller Company was not shown to be untrue. The falsity now principally urged is that more than $200 was owing for borrowed money, and proven notes amounting to several thousand dollars are pointed to. M. D. Maloof, in his testimony first says that the items of $200 for borrowed money and $8,200 for all liabilities were correct at the date of the statement. He also seems to say afterwards that named notes for about $4,900 were for borrowed money,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hardie v. Swafford Bros. Dry Goods Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1908
  2. Franklin v. Monning Dry Goods Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1914
  3. Ragan, Malone & Co. v. Cotton & PrestonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1912
  4. In re Cotton & PrestonDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1910

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. National Bank of North America v. Newmark (In Re Newmark)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 1982
  2. In Re LovichCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
  3. Citizens State Bank of Maryville v. Walker (In Re Walker)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · 1985
  4. Modern Distributors, Inc. v. Gray (In Re Gray)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1982
  5. Love v. Smith (In Re Smith)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API