Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Craig L. Edins and Mary P. Edins Debtors v. Helzberg's Diamond Shops, Inc., and William Porter, Receiver in Bankruptcy, 7189_1 (1963)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 7189_1 Visitors: 108
Filed: Apr. 05, 1963
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 315 F.2d 223 Craig L. EDINS and Mary P. Edins debtors, Appellants, v. HELZBERG'S DIAMOND SHOPS, INC., and William Porter, Receiver in Bankruptcy, Appellees. No. 7189. United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. April 5, 1963. Donald B. Clark, Wichita, Kan. (Charles D. Anderson and Marvin R. Appling, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellants. No. appearance for appellees. Before PICKETT and SETH, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSON, District judge. PER CURIAM. 1 The United States District Court
More

315 F.2d 223

Craig L. EDINS and Mary P. Edins debtors, Appellants,
v.
HELZBERG'S DIAMOND SHOPS, INC., and William Porter, Receiver
in Bankruptcy, Appellees.

No. 7189.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 5, 1963.

Donald B. Clark, Wichita, Kan. (Charles D. Anderson and Marvin R. Appling, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellants.

No. appearance for appellees.

Before PICKETT and SETH, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSON, District judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas sustained an order of the referee in bankruptcy dismissing proceedings in which the debtors sought confirmation of a wage earner plan for an extension of time to pay their debts in full under Chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 930 (1938), as amended, 11 U.S.C. 1001-1086. The ground for the dismissal was that the proceedings were brought within six years of a prior discharge in bankruptcy. Since the entry of the order we have held that Section 14, Sub. c(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, 66 Stat. 422 (1952), 11 U.S.C. 32, sub. c(5), should not be construed to bar a wage earner plan under Chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act in which the debtor seeks to pay his debts, not to discharge them. In re Holmes, 10 Cir., 309 F.2d 748. For the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment is reversed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer