Mau v. Sampsell
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Jack Mau appeals from an order denying him discharge in bankruptcy upon the following facts:
The due debt in suit is admitted. A representative of the creditor requested payment, whereupon the debtor addressed a letter to the creditor stating that an existing escrow would soon net him cash in excess of the debt, and requested, in effect, extension of credit until the escrow money was reelased. The creditor withheld taking further action for collection of the debt upon strength of the letter. No such escrow was in existence and the referee in bankruptcy held in effect that the letter was a fraudulent report of appellant’s financial status and was cause for denying discharge of the bankrupt and caused such order to be entered. The district judge affirmed the order. Section 14, sub. c, National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 32 , sub. c.
We think the order was proper.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.