The opinion of the court was delivered by: GALSTON
Petition denied. I agree entirely with the decision of the referee. Settle Order.
The debtor filed a petition under the provisions of Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq. on December 16, 1953. An amended plan of arrangement was filed pursuant to order dated January 4, 1954 under the terms of which the debtor proposes a plan to pay unsecured creditors 20% of their claims, 10% in cash on confirmation and 10% within 60 days, (a note endorsed by the debtor).
Schieffelin & Co., Inc., a creditor, filed Specifications of objection to confirmation on April 8, 1954, pursuant to Section 366(3) of the Bankruptcy Act, which were set for hearing on April 13, 1954. The debtor has moved to dismiss the Specifications upon the ground that the facts alleged as grounds for objection are insufficient in law to constitute a bar to discharge under Section 14, sub. c of the Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c.
The Specifications allege that the debtor in a prior bankruptcy proceeding filed by him in this Court on January 27, 1944, in which he was granted a discharge in bankruptcy on April 13, 1944, committed two offenses in this prior proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act, punishable by imprisonment in that he knowingly and fraudulently concealed property from his trustee, and knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath as to his assets in such prior proceeding.
The discharge in bankruptcy discharged the bankrupt of his provable debts which existed on January 27, 1944. The present debtor proceeding relates to obligations arising subsequent to January 27, 1944. The law is well established that the objections presented by the Specifications here which may have been grounds to oppose the discharge in the 1944 proceeding, cannot be urged as a bar to discharge in the present proceeding of the debtor, under which he seeks a discharge through confirmation of a plan, of debts which arose subsequent to his 1944 discharge. Raphiel v. Morris Plan Ind. Bank of N.Y., 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 340, 341. The decision in Re Cole, D.C., 88 F.Supp. 842, cited by the objecting creditor does not apply to the acts alleged in the Specifications here. The Specifications should be dismissed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...