Court Opinion

ID: 8129544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 17:08:17.125656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:26.295462
License: Public Domain

LOWELL, District Judge.
The question is one of fact, whether this bankrupt had, at the time of his bankruptcy, any estate or effects, or any books relating thereto, which he has concealed. If he had such de facto, though by a defeasible title, he must set them out in his schedules, and give them to his assignees. It is not for him to rely on the title of a third person, which he has not himself respected. The presumption is that he surrendered all his property in I860; but that is a presumption of fact, and if he did not, it is not important whether his motives were good or bad, whether his acts were done with the consent or against the will, and in fraud of the rights, of his then assignees. The possession of assets in the use and enjoyment of the bankrupt makes a sufficient title for his assignees in bankruptcy until the earlier assignees shall dispute it. A like argument applies to the books of account, though with somewhat greater force, because they are not so much assets as means of evidence, and might well be left in the bankrupt’s possession after they had been inspected and made use of by the former assignees.
Again, it is said that the books and the property, if any there were, belonged to the firm of Beal & Ricker, and the firm is not in bankruptcy. But if this bankrupt had in his possession any of the joint estate, it would pass to his assignee, who would hold as tenant in common with the solvent partner. Whether the latter could take possession and control of it, subject to account, would depend on circumstances. Speaking generally, he could not; and, in any event, it must be disclosed in the bankrupt’s schedules.
Finally, it was argued that these assignees, who happen to • be the very same persons who were the assignees in insolvency, knew all that they now know long before the bankruptcy, and therefore there has been no concealment from them. As I state this argument, I fear that I must have misunderstood it; if not, it is easily answered. A concealment of property and books from a person entitled to their possession is not the less a concealment of them because he knows they are concealed, if he does not know where they are concealed. The facts in the case show a studied and protracted evasion on the part of the bankrupt of all information on the subject of his property and books. He seems to be very hostile in his feelings toward the assignees, and this may possibly account for his mode of meeting the necessary and proper inquiries which were made of him in his examination before the register; but the natural inference is that he was seeking to conceal the truth. He undertook, towards the close of the hearing, to account for his trade property by the payment of large debts by way of preference; but the explanation seemed to 'come very late. I do not feel by anjr means sure that he has any estate, but upon the evidence I can hardly say that he has not. There is every reason to suppose that he has the books of account of Beal & Ricker, unless he has destroyed them; and on the ground that he has concealed them from his assignees I refuse his discharge.
Discharge refused. •