Coleman v. Federal Land Bank

Sixth Circuit

Coleman v. Federal Land Bank

93 F.2d 1001, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2950

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1937

DocketNo. 7554

StatusPublished

This text of 93 F.2d 1001 (Coleman v. Federal Land Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coleman v. Federal Land Bank, 93 F.2d 1001, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2950 (6th Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon a consideration of the facts as disclosed by the record in this case, this court is of opinion that the District Court was correct in finding (1) “Subsection (s) does not authorize the court to grant an extension of time arbitrarily”; (2) “The debtor’s offer of composition and extension was not made in good faith as that term is used in the statute”; and that the court did not err in its order dismissing the petition of petitioner in that court, appellant here. In re Borgelt, 7 Cir., 79 F.2d 929; Steverson v. Clark, 4 Cir., 86 F.2d 330; In re Reichert, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 1, 4, 5; In re Schaeffer, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 807; In re Byrd, D.C., 15 F.Supp. 453; In re Wylie, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 193, 194. All, among others, cited in footnote 6, in Wright v. Vinton Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U.S. 440, 462-463, 57 S.Ct. 556, 562, 81 L.Ed. 736.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon a consideration of the facts as disclosed by the record in this case, this court is of opinion that the District Court was correct in finding (1) “Subsection (s) does not authorize the court to grant an extension of time arbitrarily”; (2) “The debtor’s offer of composition and extension was not made in good faith as that term is used in the statute”; and that the court did not err in its order dismissing the petition of petitioner in that court, appellant here. In re Borgelt, 7 Cir., 79 F.2d 929; Steverson v. Clark, 4 Cir., 86 F.2d 330; In re Reichert, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 1, 4, 5; In re Schaeffer, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 807; In re Byrd, D.C., 15 F.Supp. 453; In re Wylie, D.C., 16 F.Supp. 193, 194. All, among others, cited in footnote 6, in Wright v. Vinton Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U.S. 440, 462-463, 57 S.Ct. 556, 562, 81 L.Ed. 736.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 F.2d 1001, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-federal-land-bank-ca6-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack