De Bondo v. Tyler

Third Circuit

De Bondo v. Tyler

92 F.2d 125, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4501

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 1937

DocketNo. 6446

StatusPublished

This text of 92 F.2d 125 (De Bondo v. Tyler) 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

De Bondo v. Tyler, 92 F.2d 125, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4501 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the bankruptcy case below the master to whom the matter was referred refused to allow the claims of Rose De Bondo and Vito Polito against the bankrupt estate. The master’s holding was approved by the court. Thereupon the claimants took this appeal.

In final analysis the case turns on the question of fact whether the claims made constituted, indebtedness of the bankrupt. No principle or precedent is involved. While the master and the judge sustained their conclusions on somewhat different views, it still remains that both agreed in finding that the claims were not indebtedness of the bankrupt. The claimants had full opportunity to be heard and in point of fact were personally called by the trustee as his witnesses, and from their own and other testimony he found against them.

After consideration of all points raised, we find no error in the court’s holding. So regarding, the decree below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the bankruptcy case below the master to whom the matter was referred refused to allow the claims of Rose De Bondo and Vito Polito against the bankrupt estate. The master’s holding was approved by the court. Thereupon the claimants took this appeal.

In final analysis the case turns on the question of fact whether the claims made constituted, indebtedness of the bankrupt. No principle or precedent is involved. While the master and the judge sustained their conclusions on somewhat different views, it still remains that both agreed in finding that the claims were not indebtedness of the bankrupt. The claimants had full opportunity to be heard and in point of fact were personally called by the trustee as his witnesses, and from their own and other testimony he found against them.

After consideration of all points raised, we find no error in the court’s holding. So regarding, the decree below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F.2d 125, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-bondo-v-tyler-ca3-1937.