Fry v. Shaeffer

Third Circuit

Fry v. Shaeffer

94 F.2d 978, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4559

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1938

DocketNo. 6406

StatusPublished

This text of 94 F.2d 978 (Fry v. Shaeffer) 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

Fry v. Shaeffer, 94 F.2d 978, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4559 (3d Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The questions raised require an examination of the testimony taken before the conciliation commissioner or referee and his report in the premises to the trial court. Such evidence and such report are not part of the record, nor is there any agreed statement of the evidence or of the report by the parties as to what they respectively contain. See Equity Rules Nos. 75 and 77, 226 U.S. 672, 286 U.S. 570, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, and General Order in Bankruptcy No. 36; 288 U.S. 632, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. Not having such before us, we indulge the presumption that the missing items support the decree made by the District Court. See Bank of Eureka v. Partington, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 587, 590.

Accordingly, the decree of the court below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The questions raised require an examination of the testimony taken before the conciliation commissioner or referee and his report in the premises to the trial court. Such evidence and such report are not part of the record, nor is there any agreed statement of the evidence or of the report by the parties as to what they respectively contain. See Equity Rules Nos. 75 and 77, 226 U.S. 672, 286 U.S. 570, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, and General Order in Bankruptcy No. 36; 288 U.S. 632, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. Not having such before us, we indulge the presumption that the missing items support the decree made by the District Court. See Bank of Eureka v. Partington, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 587, 590.

Accordingly, the decree of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F.2d 978, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fry-v-shaeffer-ca3-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack