New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-09-03
THE COURTS.
AN OLD BANKRUPTCY CASE REVIVED.
CONFUSION CAUSED BY SUPPLEMENTAL ACTS AMI
AMpNDMKNTs-A DECISION BY JUDGE BLATCH-

AN OLD BANKRUPTCY CASE REVIVED.
CONFUSION CAUSED BY Suppl ELEMENTAL ACTS AND
AMENpMENTs-A DECISION BY JUDGE BLATCH-
FORD.
CharlesJ. Francke, jr., and Charles F. Francke
were adjudged bsnkrupts as coparners In June 1874
and they appeared and filed written consent TO the
adjudication. warrant issued. and the hrst meet
ing Of creditors held August OF that year. wheh
80 creditors proved their clams, and an assignee was
chosen by tho votes of AZ OF the creditors On Sept H.
1872 the bankrupts filed schedule OF debts and assets
and on July 49, 1874 they presented to the United States
District Court petition asking for their discharge
from bankruptcy. BY July a. a creditors had proved
their claims. The hearing on the petition Tor
discharge was set down for Aug. Is, 18Th
No creditors appeared to oppose discharge
The assignee has received moneys belonging to
the bsnkrupts estate TO the amount OF 1895 a. 1t was
not shown that the OF the bankrups we're equal
to so per cent Of the claims proved against their estate
upon which they are liable as principal debtors, nor
was 1t shown that the assent in writing OF majority In
number and value OF the creditors TO whom they De
came liable principal debtors, ana VINO nave proved
their claims filed before the time OF the hear
ing OF the application for discharge. According to
the schedules all of the debts were contracted after
Dec ST. 1865 but Register Dayton certified TO the United
States District Court that the bankrupts have con-
formed TO their duty under the act OF Congress- entitled
an Act to Establish Uniform System OF Bankruptcy
throughout the United States, and tho act
amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto" The
case then brought before Judge Blstchford' who
in decision given yesterday, says:
The act OF June a. 1863 provides In all proceedings
in bankruptcy after June l. 1862 no discharge
shall be granted TO debtor whose asses saa not Ge
estate upon which he shall be liable as the prnelpa
unless the a. in %h" sSa IL
have proved their claims, lie ned IN the case AZ OF pc
fore the time Of the hearing OF the eppcatono lor a
| nha pp Ganftn M W,
declared that the provisions OF the second clause OF sec
80 OF the of 1867 amended by Section OF the
bankrupt seeks discharge, which were contracteu
prior to 1869. The requirement., OF the act S o.
r DTo ""ppi begun after June l. 1869, whether
the petition be one hed BY or one eq axain' d te
charge in this is not shown But the certcate
is case of compulsory or involuntary Bankruptcy, dis
charges may and must under the act OF June ~ 1871 W
the act of 1868 Section the act of 1874 provides as
follows: "In cases OF compulsory OF inVoluhtalS
the 81 and and a asy
thereof. or Of any supplement! thetf'? re aishts
OF the bankrupt the assent OF portion OF DIS
creditors condition OF his discharge from his deDts
shall not egp but he he ts dr IN Se sse an
and with the same effect as II he had paid SUCH per
creditors had assented thereto And in cases voluu
tary bankruptcy. no Discharge shall be granted 10
debtor whose assets shall not be equal 10 80 per cent OF
claims pioved against his estate, upon which be shall
| be liable principal debtor. without tie assent OF
| at least onefourth OF his creditors in number,
and one third In value and the provisions In Section 50
of said act OF 1867 requiring 50 cent OF sucn
assets is hereby repealed" The PROVISIONS Of the act
OF 1865 were amendment of Section 80 OF the act OF
| 1867. 5000 ~,
What the effect OF Section OF the act OF 1s7if was
IL intended apply to cases begun before the date OF
its passage3 1t docs not repeal anything except The
provision requiring so per cent OF such asses; and
Section q Of the act OF 1874 repeas only such acts and
parts OF inconsistent with the PROVISIONS OF
the act of 1874 IL Inconsistent with the provisions or
the act Of that in the present case IL should be
10 comply with the requirements OF the act OF
1865 Does the repeal OF the provision requiring 80
per cent such assets make the act OF 1868 nappcaoe
to the present case
Judge Blachford in conclusion, answers these ques-
tons by saying: al must withhold discharges in this
case until the provisions Of the act of 1868 complied
with" Joseph Gutman appeared counsel for the
bankrupts.