Case Name: In re THE HUB
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1921-06
Citations: 275 F. 400
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re THE HUB.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 275
Pages: 400–400

Head Matter:
In re THE HUB.
(District Court, S. D. Florida.
June, 1921.)
Bankruptcy <§=>108—Affidavit of creditor’s attorney held insufficient for issuance of warrant to seize bankrupt’s property.
Under Bankruptcy Act, § 69 (Comp. St. § 9653), providing for issuance of warrant requiring marshal to seize bankrupt’s property and hold it subject to further orders of court, on satisfactory proof that a bankrupt has committed an act of bankruptcy, such warrant would not. be issued on the affidavit of one of the attorneys of the petitioning creditors as to statements made to him by certain parties, where answer denied the acts of bankruptcy alleged; the statements, except such as were made by the bankrupts, being hearsay and without probative value.
cgr^Por other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
In Bankruptcy. In the matter of The Hub, bankrupt. On application under Bankruptcy Act, § 69, for a warrant to the marshal to seize property of the bankrupt and hold it subject to further order of the court.
Application denied.
Altman & Morrow, of Tampa, Fla., for petitioners.
Macfarlane & Macfarlane, of Tampa, Fla., for defendants.

Opinion:
CAFF, District Judge.
This application is made under section 69 of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9653), which provides:
"A judge may, upon satisfactory proof, by affidavit, that a bankrupt against whom an involuntary petition has been filed and is pending has committed an act of bankruptcy, issue a warrant to the marshal to seize and hold it subject to further orders."
In this matter the only affidavit submitted with the application is made by one of the attorneys of the petitioning creditors as to statements made to him by certain parties. These statements, except such as were made by the bankrupts, are hearsay and without probative value. In re Kelly (D. C. Tenn.) 91 Fed. 504, 1 Am. Bankr. Rep. 306. The statute requires at least a prima facie case to be made by the applicants. This has not been done in this case, in the face of the answer denying the acts of bankruptcy alleged in the petition, and therefore the application will be denied.