Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-11-17
IN BANKRUPTCY.
The Operation of the Late Amend
nent to the BanlEraPs Act-OpiniOn
of Judge Trigg.

| of Judge Trigg.
An opinion was rendered by Judge Trigg
Yesterday of the United States District
Court in regard TO the operation of the
late amendment by Congress TO the Bank
rupt act, which will be of interest to
others occupying the same position as in
the csse decided The case in controversy
was in the matter of Geo. w. Seay, ana
Judge Trigg as viii be seen sustains the
action taken by the Register in Bank
ruptcy. Below we give the certificate re-
| fsrred TO the court by the Register, and
Judge Triggs approval of the same
| CERTIFICATE BY THE REGISTER.
The original petition by the creditor, the
Traders Bank, was filed June "A, 1869, and
the debtor was adjudged bankrupt on the
| 10Th dsy of November, 1869.
On the 9Th day of November, 1870, the
meeting for hearing on petition for dis
| charge was held; at which bankrupt attend
cd and passed his last examination. There
WAC no appearance or opposition by any
| creditor, and the assignee reported that he
| had neither received nor paid any moneys
| on account of the estate, and that the as
sets were not equal to fifty per cent. OF the
claims proved against said estate contract
ed since Jan. l. 1869, on which bankrupt
was liable as principal debtor.
1t appeared that three proofs of debts on
which bankrupt was liable, az principal
debtor, had been filed, two of which had
been contracted before Jan. /, 1869, and
the other (or part of it, had been contract
ed since that date No written assent was
filed in the case l certified that there
was no opposition and that it appeared to
me that the bankrupt had in all things
conformed to his duty under the act, and
to all requirements thereof, except the re-
quirement contained in the I'd clause of
section 80 as amended by acts of July p,
1868, and July IA, 1870.
The question is, under the above state of
facts, whether discharge shall be granted
to the bankrupt, and if granted, what must
be its form and its effect upon his debts
contracted both prior and subsequent TO
Jan. l, 1869. The clause of sec. 80 referred
to, as amended by act of July %, 1868, is
as follows
In all proceedings in bankruptcy COM
menced after the 1st day of January, 1869,
no discharge shall be granted to a debtor
whose assets shall not be equal to 30 per
centum of the claims proved against his
estate upon which he shall be liable as
principal debtor, unless the assent in writ
ing of a majority in number and vslue of
bis creditors to whom he shall have become
liable as principal debtor, and who shall
have proved their claims be filed in the
| case at or before the time of the hearing of
| the application for discharge"
Thus the law stood at the time of the
commencement of the proceedings in this
case. But before the hearing of the appli-
cation for discharge, the act of July IA,
| 1870, was passed, which is as follows:
''Be it enacted, ETC., That GheprovisiOns
| of the second clause of the sd section of
said act, as amended by the first section Of
an act in amendment thereof, approved
July u, 1868, shall not apply to those
debts from which the bankrupt seeks dis
charge which were contracted prior to the
| first day of January, 1863.
Had not the last amendment been passed
it is evident that no discharge could have
been granted this bankrupt, as the obsta-
Gle 10 his discharge land the only obstacle
thereto, would have been the provision of
said second clause, the obvious application
and sole object of which was to prevent
such discharge, except upon certain con-
ditions respecting assets.
One of the two great objects to be ef-
fected by the Bankrupt Act is the discharge
of debtor who has fully complied with
tho requirements of the act, and it would
seem 10 follow that if particular restric-
ton upon the right of debtor to a dis
charge has been removed, then the right
| is Immediately resumed to the full extent
that it is unaffected by any remaining re-
striction.
The time when this restrictive clause
could have any operative force would be
on the day of the hearing of the applica-
ton for discharge, and in this case on that
day there was no restriction on the bank
| rupt's right to a discharge, except with re-
gard TO his debts contracted subsequent
TO Jan l, 1869. Upon this state of facts
think discharge should be issued to the
bankrupt, modified to read as follows:
Whereas, George w. Seay has been duly
adjudged bankrupt under the act of Con-
gress establishing a uniform system of
bankruptcy throughout the United States,
and appears to have confOrmed to all the
requirements of law IN that behalf respect
ing lis debts contracted prtOr 10 jan.
|, 1869, it is therefore ordered by the
court that said George w. Seay be forever
discharged from all debts and claims which
by said act are made provable against his
estate, a1iich lrere c0HtrGcted prtOr 10 Jan.
l, 1863, and which existed on the 24th day
of June, 1869, on which day the petition
for adjudication was fled against him, ex-
cepting such debts, if any, as are by said
act excepted from the operation of a dig
charge in bankruptcy.
The question whether the discharge
should also bar those debts contracted
since jan 1, 1869, which hace not been
proceed, | think must be answered in the
negative for the following reason: By the
terms of the last amendment it seems that
the restrictive clause is left to operate with
the same force and effect upon the debts
contracted since Jan. /, 1863, as it pre-
viously did upon all debts whenever con-
tracted Since, therefore, before the last
amendment, no discharge at all could
have been issued (even to bar debts not
proved if the assets did not pay 80 per
centum of those which were proved, and
the last amendment only modifes the
action of the court respecting the debts
contracted prior to Jan. l, 1869, it would
seem to follow that there is no authority
given to grant discharge for any debts
contracted subsequent to that date. Nash
vile, Nov. -, 1870.
ALEX S. BRADLEY,
Register in Bankruptcy.
have examined the questions submitted
in the foregoing certificate from Mr.. Regis
ter Bradley, and fully approve the opin-
ion which he has given, and it is ordered