SHAPIRO & ORNISH, A PARTNERSHIP, AND JULIUS SHAPIRO AND LOUIS ORNISH, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. J. HOLLIDAY, TRUSTEE IN THE MATTER OF SHAPIRO & ORNISH, A PARTNERSHIP, AND JULIUS SHAPIRO AND LOUIS ORNISH, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
This is an appeal from a judgment denying a discharge in bankruptcy to appellants on the ground that they had failed to explain satisfactorily losses of assets and the deficiency of assets to meet their liabilities at the time of adjudication as bankrupts. Section 14b(7) Bankruptcy Act as amended by the Act of May 27, 1926 (11 USCA § 32).
This ease presents purely a question of fact. The District Court in 37 F.(2d) 403 reviewed the material facts and reached the conclusion that a discharge should be withheld. It would serve no good purpose to again review the facts. It is enough to say that the record supports the conclusion reached by the District Court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Seymour Chalik v. Moorefield, 748 F.2d 616 (11th Cir. 1984)
-
In re Reed v. Reed, 700 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1983)
-
Gunzburg v. Ingard Johannesen in Bankruptcy, 300 F.2d 40 (5th Cir. 1962)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Shapiro & Ornish (N.D. Tex. 1929)