Deeley v. Cincinnati Art Pub. Co.

Sixth Circuit

Deeley v. Cincinnati Art Pub. Co.

23 F.2d 920, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3272

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 1928

Docket4886

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 23 F.2d 920 (Deeley v. Cincinnati Art Pub. Co.) 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

Deeley v. Cincinnati Art Pub. Co., 23 F.2d 920, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3272 (6th Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The proceeding before the referee and review by the District Judge were most plainly among the “proceedings in bankruptcy” provided for in section 24b oC the Bankruptcy Act, now U. S. Code, tit. 11, § 47 (11 USCA § 47). They involved only the right of a nonresident creditor, who had proved his claim, to withdraw it in order to avoid being subject to a liability in tho bankruptcy court to respond for a preference said to have been given to him. It is plain that this court has no power of review, except as the power to revise in matter of law is given by 24b. Since the amendment of May 27,1926 (11 USCA § 47), abolishing petitions to revise, the only review is by a special appeal, allowed in its discretion by this court, instead of in the usual manner. It is probably to he inferred, as the reason for this amendment, that it was thought tho ordinary proceedings in bankruptcy ought not to ho reviewed, and necessarily suspended, by any appeal which either party might invoke as a right, and that the appellate court would not allow frivolous or nonsubstantial appeals. Whether or not this is the reason, tho fact is clear that we have no jurisdiction of an appeal under 24b which we did not allow. The appeal here was allowed in February, 1927, by the District Court, as it might be if taken under 24a or 25a (11 USCA § 48). See Rutherford v. Elliott (C. C. A. 6) 18 F.(2d) 956.

The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We have the less regret in thus disposing of tho ease, because we are not satisfied that tho permission to withdraw was erroneously granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

The proceeding before the referee and review by the District Judge were most plainly among the “proceedings in bankruptcy” provided for in section 24b oC the Bankruptcy Act, now U. S. Code, tit. 11, § 47 (11 USCA § 47). They involved only the right of a nonresident creditor, who had proved his claim, to withdraw it in order to avoid being subject to a liability in tho bankruptcy court to respond for a preference said to have been given to him. It is plain that this court has no power of review, except as the power to revise in matter of law is given by 24b. Since the amendment of May 27,1926 (11 USCA § 47), abolishing petitions to revise, the only review is by a special appeal, allowed in its discretion by this court, instead of in the usual manner. It is probably to he inferred, as the reason for this amendment, that it was thought tho ordinary proceedings in bankruptcy ought not to ho reviewed, and necessarily suspended, by any appeal which either party might invoke as a right, and that the appellate court would not allow frivolous or nonsubstantial appeals. Whether or not this is the reason, tho fact is clear that we have no jurisdiction of an appeal under 24b which we did not allow. The appeal here was allowed in February, 1927, by the District Court, as it might be if taken under 24a or 25a (11 USCA § 48). See Rutherford v. Elliott (C. C. A. 6) 18 F.(2d) 956.

The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We have the less regret in thus disposing of tho ease, because we are not satisfied that tho permission to withdraw was erroneously granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F.2d 920, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deeley-v-cincinnati-art-pub-co-ca6-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack