TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Green

In re Green, 6 F. Supp. 1022 (W.D.N.Y. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, W.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
May 17, 1934
Docket
No. 21517
Judges
Knight
Citations
6 F. Supp. 10221934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1855

Opinion of the Court — Knight

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

Bankrupt moves for an order restraining a judgment creditor from taking further steps to- enforce payment of his judgment and particularly to enjoin said judgment creditor from securing an order directing the bankrupt to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for failure to appear for examination in supplementary proceedings in response to an order of the county court, Erie county, New York.

Bankrupt asserts that, subsequent to his failure to appear and after the service of an order to show eause why he should not be punished for contempt for such failure, he made payments on the judgment at the office of the attorney for the judgment creditor and was told to forget about the show eause order, which was not adjourned to any later date. Thereafter and on March 30, 1934, he filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. It-is contended by the bankrupt that the creditor waived the contempt by accepting payments on the judgment and by failing to exercise his right to a contempt proceeding ht the time it was available.

A fine levied for contempt for failui-e to obey an order of the court is not discharge-able in bankruptcy. In re Thomashefsky (C. C. A.) 51 F.(2d) 1040 ; In re Spagat (D. C.) 4 F. Supp. 926 .

The order directing the debtor to appear for examination in supplementary proceedings was a valid order when made. Likewise, the order directing the debtor to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for failure to appear was valid when made. The bankrupt asserts that the creditor waived the contempt and abandoned the proceeding. This is a defense to be urged in the state court. This court has no power to interfere.

Bankrupt’s affidavit fails to show that the debt as scheduled is dischargeable. The motion is therefore denied, not only as to restraint of contempt proceedings, but alsoi as to restraint of any other proceedings for enforcement of the judgment against bankrupt.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1937: 11945: 11946: 119372026peak 1937 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Parker v. United States153 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1946)
  2. In re Licht19 F. Supp. 774 (E.D.N.Y. 1937)
  3. United States v. Green Valley Creamery, Inc.59 F. Supp. 153 (D. Mass. 1945)

Most recent

  1. Parker v. United States153 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1946)
  2. United States v. Green Valley Creamery, Inc.59 F. Supp. 153 (D. Mass. 1945)
  3. In re Licht19 F. Supp. 774 (E.D.N.Y. 1937)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re Spagat, 4 F. Supp. 926 (S.D.N.Y. 1933) 21
In re Thomashefsky, 51 F.2d 1040 (2d Cir. 1931) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list