Legal Opinion · Dissent

R. H. Berg v. Charles E. Hoppe, Assignee of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 3, 1965No. 19317_1Published

1DissentBarnes, Circuit Judge

I respectfully disagree and dissent.

Appellants insist that the Bankruptcy Act expressly directs that the appropriate schedules of the alleged bankrupt only be submitted after it is determined that the respondent is in fact a bankrupt within the meaning of the Act. Appellants cite as authority for this proposition the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 25(a)(8) and (9).

Section 25(a)(8) reads in pertinent part as follows:

“a. The bankrupt shall * * * (8) prepare, make oath to, and file in court within five days after adjudication, if an involuntary bankrupt, * * * a schedule of his property, showing the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re ShulundDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1962
  2. In re Robt. T. Cochran & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API