Case Name: In re ALLEMAN
Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1908-07-02
Citations: 162 F. 693
Docket Number: No. 916
Parties: In re ALLEMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 693–693

Head Matter:
In re ALLEMAN.
(District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.
July 2, 1908.)
No. 916.
Bankruptcy — Discitae ue -CONCEAKtfENT or Property.
The omission by a bankrupt from his schedules, under advice of counsel, of property claimed by another and the ownership of which was at least doubtful, cannot be held to be such a fraudulent concealment as to bar his right to a discharge under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, § 14b(4), c. 541, 30 Stat. 550 (U. S. Comp. St. 3901, p. 3127), as amended by Act Feb. 5, 3903, c. 487, 32 Stat. 797 (ü. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 1025).
l.Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 6, Bankruptcy, § 735.]
In Bankruptcy. On exceptions to report of J. E. Vandersloot, special master, on objections to discharge.
E. A. Weaver, for the exceptions.
W. C. Sheely, opposed.

Opinion:
ARCHBARD, District Judge.
There is but one exception which comes within the statute, that which charges the fraudulent concealment of his property by the bankrupt, and that is the only one therefore which can be considered. Nor is it sustained by the evidence. The alleged ownership by the bankrupt of the mail boxes at the Rittles-town Post Office, upon which the exception is founded, is denied, and, to say the least, is doubtful, these boxes being claimed by his wife as purchaser of the property at sheriff's sale, to say nothing of the special arrangement outside of that by which she was to be the owner. Notice was given at the sale that these boxes would belong to the purchaser as a part of the realty to which they were affixed, and, while this may not be conclusive of the question, it certainly gives colorable ground for that contention. It is the fraudulent concealment of property that bars a discharge, and it is useless to charge that there was anything of that kind under the conditions which we have here. The property in question was omitted from-the schedules by the bankrupt after consultation with and under the advice of counsel, based upon what has been referred to, and that is the end of any claim of fraud.
The exceptions are dismissed, and the report of the master is confirmed.