United States v. Hawkins
UNITED STATES v. HAWKINS (five cases.)
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James (author)
Analysis
The defendant, a surety on forfeited bail bonds who had recently received a bankruptcy discharge, moved to stay further proceedings in five suits where the United States had obtained judgments against him. The court granted the motion, holding that the debt was not an exception to discharge under the Bankruptcy Act.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to stay proceedings granted“The motion to stay proceedings is therefore granted in each case.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. Under Section 17, a discharge releases the debtor from all debts provable against his property, except those specifically enumerated (such as fraud, willful injury, or taxes). The court correctly identified that the liability of a surety on a bail bond is not among the statutory exceptions. Therefore, the discharge of the defendant's bankruptcy estate extinguished the personal liability on the judgments, making the stay of proceedings the appropriate procedural remedy to enforce the discharge. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant statute (Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act) and applies it to the specific facts (surety on bail bond). The conclusion that the debt is dischargeable follows directly from the statutory text, as bail bond suretyship is not a listed exception. The order does not need to cite case law because the statutory interpretation is straightforward and the record is not in dispute.
Opinion — James
JAMES, District Judge.
The United States obtained judgment against the defendant above named in the several suits bearing the numbers indicated. The judgment was based upon the liability of the said defendant as surety on bail bonds executed in favor of the government, and as to which bonds forfeiture had been entered because of the default of the defendant criminally charged. Thereafter on September 8, 1926, defendant herein was adjudicated a bankrupt. He scheduled among his debts his liability on the several bail bonds referred to, and his discharge has recently been granted. He has now moved for an order to stay further proceedings in each of these eases.
There seems to be no doubt but that he is entitled to such an order. The debts represented by tho judgments in favor of the United States aro all of a class as to which a discharge in bankruptcy is a release. Section 17 of the federal Bankruptcy Aet (Comp. St. § 9601) enumerates the exceptions, and the debt of a surety on a bail bond is not brought within any of them.
The motion to stay proceedings is therefore granted in each case.