Brown v. Schwehm

Third Circuit

Brown v. Schwehm

72 F.2d 1010, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4767

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 1934

DocketNo. 5320

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 F.2d 1010 (Brown v. Schwehm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Schwehm, 72 F.2d 1010, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4767 (3d Cir. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this bankruptcy ease, which concerned the administration of a large quantity of unfinished clothing, the present trustee sought to surcharge the former trustee with some $14,000 for his fraudulently doing what he ought not to have done, and with some $11,-000 additional, for his failure to do what it is alleged he ought to have done and whereby, it is alleged, he would have bettered the estate to that extent. This latter surcharge the court below refused to make, and from its decree so ordering the trustee appealed.

No question of law is involved in the case, but rather the business and administrative one arising in handling the situation. The opinion of the court below is so thorough and comprehensive, covering 'as it does every phase of the administration of the estate, that an additional opinion by this court would be a studied effort to use different language and avoid duplication of what has been already adequately discussed by the judge' below. As we find ourselves in accord with his statement and conclusion, we limit ourselves to affirming the decree below on his opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this bankruptcy ease, which concerned the administration of a large quantity of unfinished clothing, the present trustee sought to surcharge the former trustee with some $14,000 for his fraudulently doing what he ought not to have done, and with some $11,-000 additional, for his failure to do what it is alleged he ought to have done and whereby, it is alleged, he would have bettered the estate to that extent. This latter surcharge the court below refused to make, and from its decree so ordering the trustee appealed.

No question of law is involved in the case, but rather the business and administrative one arising in handling the situation. The opinion of the court below is so thorough and comprehensive, covering 'as it does every phase of the administration of the estate, that an additional opinion by this court would be a studied effort to use different language and avoid duplication of what has been already adequately discussed by the judge' below. As we find ourselves in accord with his statement and conclusion, we limit ourselves to affirming the decree below on his opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F.2d 1010, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-schwehm-ca3-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack