Case ID: f_122/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ARCHBALD, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re HAYNES & SONS.
    District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.
    May 9, 1903.)
    No. 25.
    1. Bankruptcy — Discharge—Petition—Objections—Practice.
    Where bankrupts have been allowed to file a petition for a discharge, notwithstanding more than a year has passed since the adjudication, the only question open thereafter is whether they are entitled to a discharge, and creditors seeking to oppose the discharge are confined to the statutory objections.
    3. Same — Remedy—Motion to Vacate.
    Though the court entertains a petition for a bankrupt’s discharge more than a year after the adjudication, on an insufficient showing, the remedy is a motion to vacate, and it is too late to contest the matter on the hearing of the petition.
    In Bankruptcy.
    A. W. Potter, for bankrupts.
    Chas. P. Ulrich, opposed.
   ARCHBALD, District Judge.

The bankrupts having been allowed to file their petition, notwithstanding more than a year had passed since the adjudication, the only question open was whether they were ■entitled to a discharge, and creditors who sought to oppose it were ■confined to the statutory objections. It may be that the court entertained the-petition after the year upon an insufficient showing, but the remedy, if so, was to move to vacate. It was too late to contest the matter on the hearing of the petition after the expense incident to it had been incurred.

Let a decree be made allowing a discharge.