Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/851

 IK BE JAMES B. HICHOLS. 843 �Choatb, J. This is an application to compel the bankrupt to execute necessary instruments to enable the assignee to make available, as assets of the bankrupt's estate, a seat in the New York Stock Exchange held by the bankrapt at the time of the filing of his petition. �More than three years before this motion was made the baïikrupt was discharged. He has now appeared by counsel, and takes the objection that since his discharge he is not subject to the summary jurisdiction of the court, nor can be compelled by an order in the bankruptcy proceeding to exe- cute writings or instruments to enable the assignee to demand, recover and receive the property assigned. He also claims that in this case it was determined by the court that the seat in the stock exchange was not property to which the assignee is entitled. This decision is claimed to bave been made in passing on the application of the bankrupt for his discharge. �An examination of the record, however, shows that the specifications of the opposing creditors were for wilfuUy and fraudulently omitting this item from his sehedule, wilfully swearing falsely to the truth of the affidavit annexed to the sehedule which omitted this asset, and wilfully swearing falsely in his examination that he had no other property than that named in the sehedule. It is evident that the overruling of these specifications as not proved, and the granting of the discharge, were not a determination of the question whether or not the seat was an asset of the estate in bankruptcy. The charges were of tdllful and fraudùlent concealment, and wilfully false swearing. And it is clear that, to find these charges proved, the court must bave been satisfied that the bankrupt, knowing and believing that the seat was property to which his creditors were entitled, intentionally omitted it from his sehedule, and wilfully swore falsely about it. The objection that the question is res adjudicata must, therefore, be over- ruled. �' The objection that the bankrupt is liable to the summary order of the court, such as is now asked for, only before his discharge, is, I think, well taken. Revised Statutes, § 5604, •Drovides: "The bankrupt shall at ail times, until his dis- ��� �