In re Needham
District Court, D. Massachusetts
[Objection was made to the bankrupt’s discharge in this case, on the ground, among others, that he had omitted from the sehed-ule the names of three of his creditors.
Read the full summary
[Objection was made to the bankrupt’s discharge in this case, on the ground, among others, that he had omitted from the sehed-ule the names of three of his creditors. Upon this point the bankrupt’s testimony tended to show that he borrowed four thousand dollars of three of big* friends to form the larger part of the capital of his business at Pittsburg; that they knew the purpose for which it was borrowed, and when the business turned out badly, did not expect to be paid in competition with his trade creditors, and have not been paid; that he did not put them on bis schedule, because he…
1Opinion of the Court
LOWELL, District Judge.
The only objection now relied on to prevent the bankrupt’s discharge is the omission from his schedule of the names of three of his creditors, who have not themselves made objection. The evidence tends to show that these creditors were friends from whom the bankrupt had borrowed the capital for his business, and that they did not expect to be paid in competition with his trade creditors, and have not been paid. No actual fraud or injury to creditors is shown or suggested. Although the omission may have been wilful in one sense, yet it would be unjust to say that the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bennett v. GoldthwaitMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Burpee v. SparhawkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Thomas v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Thornton v. HoganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876