3 F. Cas. 135 | S.D.N.Y. | 1870
The discharge of the bankrupts is opposed on the ground, as stated in one of the specifications, that, since the passing of the bankruptcy act, the bankrupts, being merchants or tradesmen, have not kept proper books of account in their business, as required by the said act, in that the true or real condition of their affairs and business cannot be ascertained therefrom; and in that such books do not show what moneys, merchandise and property they purchased or received, or what disposition was made of the same; and in that transactions both of moneys received and property sold, amounting to many thousand dollars, are not entered therein; and in that, in other respects, the books are not proper books of account, considering the business and condition of the debtors, or such as would enable a competent person to determine therefrom the real condition of their affairs.
The bankrupts were merchants engaged in business as copartners, from some time in 1866 until June, 1868. The evidence is clear that they kept no cash-book, or account answering the place of a cash-book, between the 2d of March, 1867, and the 2d of January, 1868, and that it is impossible for a competent book-keeper or accountant to ascertain from the books which they kept what was their financial condition wnen they suspended business, on the 15th of June, 1868. The keeping of a cash-book by merchants such as the bankrupts were, is indispensable. In re Solomon, [Case No. 13,167;] In re Gay, [Id. 5,279;] In re Littlefield, [Id. 8,398.]
The specification, averring as it does, that the bankrupts have not kept proper books of account in their business, in that such books do not show what moneys were received, or what disposition was made of the same, is sufficiently specific to admit evidence that no cash-book whatever was kept for a period of time. In re Littlefield, [Id. 8,398.] Besides, if necessary, an amendment of the specification would, under the circumstances, be allowed. A discharge is refused.
