Court Opinion

ID: 8634459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:42:54.912665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:53.059210
License: Public Domain

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.
I do not think that the evidence sustains this specification, or that the bankrupt has. either in *1194letter or in spirit, violated any of the provisions of the bankruptcy act, or been guilty of any thing which is made a ground, by the 29th section of the act [of 1867 (14 Stat. 531)], for withholding his discharge. The testimony given by the bankrupt, on the 23d of January, 1868, on his direct examination, unexplained, seemed to support the averment, that he had influenced the action of the creditors named by a pecuniary consideration, by procuring them to agree not to further oppose his discharge, if he would pay their counsel the amount of his charge, already then incurred, for services in the matter, and which amount the bankrupt subsequently paid, it being twenty dollars. But on his cross-examination, on the 13th of March, 186S, the bankrupt explained the whole matter satisfactorily; and his testimony shows, that the announcement by the creditors to him, that they would not oppose his discharge, was made before any thing was said between them and him as to paying their counsel, and at a prior interview, and was not induced by any promise on his part to pay the counsel, and was entirely independent of any such promise, and it does not appear that the suggestion of the creditors to him, at a subsequent interview. that it was right and proper that he should pay their counsel, was coupled with any intimation to him that his agreement to pay the counsel must be a condition of, or a consideration for, or a precedent obligation to, their agreement not to oppose his discharge. It is not pretended that any thing was paid, or agreed to be paid, by the bankrupt, to, or for the benefit of, these creditors, except the twenty dollars. The affirmative is on the opposing creditors to support the allegation of the specification. It was open to them to do so by the testimony of that member of the firm, alleged to have been influenced in its action by the pecuniary consideration, with whom the transaction took place. They have not adduced such testimony, and they have failed to sustain the allegation. I see nothing in the evidence to impeach the honesty and fair dealing of the bankrupt in all respects, and a discharge will be granted to him.