Court Opinion

ID: 9422569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:03:18.830093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:37.668810
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the dismissal of the writ respecting the issues involved in Fried v. Margolis, 296 F. 2d 670, but would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the Nazareth case, 296 F. 2d 678, relating to § 249 of the Bankruptcy Act. On that score I fully agree with Judge Friendly that at “the very least, courts are justified in demanding a clear indication of Congressional purpose before inflicting” such a “Draconian penalty” (296 F. 2d, at 683) as the Court’s decision now imposes on petitioners Weinstein and Fried. The very triviality of the transactions involved in this particular case cautions against acceptance of the Court’s ready construction of §249.