Case ID: pr-fed_7/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hamiltow, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ISIDRO A. SANCHEZ ET AL. v. MARIA GESTERA DE UBARRI.
    San Juan,
    Bankruptcy,
    No. 111.
    Fraud in Bankruptcy.
    Bankruptcy — Verification.
    1. A petition cannot be verified before the petitioner’s attorney. Administering an oath is a quasi judicial act.
    
      Same — Hindering Creditors.
    2. The bankruptcy law does not require more detail in allegation than the creditors could reasonably furnish. An allegation of fact showing intent to hinder or delay creditors is sufficient without adding fraud.
    Opinion filed October 29, 1914.
    
      Messrs. Matrinez & Besosa for petitioners.
    
      Mr. Frank Antonsanti for bankrupt
   Hamiltow, Judge,

delivered the following opinion:

1. TJpon the argument it was confessed that the verification of the' petition was improper, in that it was made by the petitioner before his attorney. Administering an oath is a quasi judicial matter, and the ordinary rule, applies that a person in interest cannot act. Note in 95 Am. Dec. 378; Jarvis-Conklin Mortg. Trust Co. v. Willhoit, 84 Fed. 515. The amended petition, however, has now been verified before another official, and so the point is taken out of the’case.

2. The demurrer as refiled raises the question of proper allegations in a petition in bankruptcy seeking to allege, under the bankruptcy law, the point as to hindering, delaying, or defrauding creditors. Bankruptcy Act 1898, § 3. It is contrary to the spirit of the bankruptcy law to require more detail than the creditors could probably furnish. Be Mero, 12 Am. Bankr. Bep. 171. And it is also true that, if there is an intent to hinder or delay creditors, fraud is unnecessary, although it will frequently coexist. Be Hughes, 183 Fed. 872, 25 Am. Bankr. Rep. 556. But allegations should be more definite than merely to furnish the possibility of such intent. It must appear from them that the purpose of the debtor at the time of making transfers was to put his property beyond the reach of creditors. This seems to be the fair construction of the amended petitions.

The demurrer therefore is overruled. It is so ordered.