Case No. 17,667.

In re WILKINSON.

[3 N. B. R. 286 (Quarto, 74);¹ 2 West. Jur. 350; 16 Pittsb. Leg. J. 237.]

District Court, E. D. Missouri.

Nov., 1869.

BANKRUPTCY—DISCHARGE.

It is the duty of the court to refuse a discharge to the bankrupt where, upon an inspection of the record, it appears that he has done those acts which prevent his receiving a discharge, although no objections are interposed by creditors.

[Cited in Re Antisdel, Case No. 490.]

[In the matter of Joseph L. Wilkinson, a bankrupt.]

PER CURIAM. The bankrupt applied to be finally discharged, no objection being interposed by creditors. The court, upon inspecting the record of the bankrupt's examination by the assignee, discovered that since the passage of the act the bankrupt had lost a large sum of money at gambling. The discharge was refused, the court holding that it was its duty to examine the record before granting a discharge, and if it appeared that the bankrupt was not entitled thereto, to refuse it, although creditors interposed no objection.

¹ Reprinted from 3 N. B. E. 286 (Quarto, 74) by permission.]

This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.