Gilkey v. National Alumni

Sixth Circuit

Gilkey v. National Alumni

288 F. 196, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2126

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 1923

DocketNo. 3878

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 F. 196 (Gilkey v. National Alumni) 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

Gilkey v. National Alumni, 288 F. 196, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2126 (6th Cir. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gilkey appeals from the adjudication of bankruptcy. The only question is whether the evidence justified the finding that he was not chiefly engaged in farming.

The burden of proof was doubtless on the petitioning creditors to establish this negative; but the referee, acting as a master, and the District Judge, concurred in the finding, and, to say the least, it does not appear to have been so unsupported by evidence, or so clearly wrong, as to justify a reversal. The proof was that Gilkey was a regular practicing pliysician, who had maintained for five years a three-room office in an office building of the city where he lived, keeping regular office hours, and attending meetings of the local medical society. On cross-examination a witness for petitioning creditors stated that Dr. Gilkey was also engaged in farming. There was no further evidence by either party; the proof stopped there.

We think it sufficient to satisfy the initial burden, and as a practical matter to call upon Dr. Gilkey to produce further evidence, if he denied — what we think tjie natural inference from these proofs — that he was engaged in his profession, at least as much as in anything else.

The order of adjudication is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gilkey appeals from the adjudication of bankruptcy. The only question is whether the evidence justified the finding that he was not chiefly engaged in farming.

The burden of proof was doubtless on the petitioning creditors to establish this negative; but the referee, acting as a master, and the District Judge, concurred in the finding, and, to say the least, it does not appear to have been so unsupported by evidence, or so clearly wrong, as to justify a reversal. The proof was that Gilkey was a regular practicing pliysician, who had maintained for five years a three-room office in an office building of the city where he lived, keeping regular office hours, and attending meetings of the local medical society. On cross-examination a witness for petitioning creditors stated that Dr. Gilkey was also engaged in farming. There was no further evidence by either party; the proof stopped there.

We think it sufficient to satisfy the initial burden, and as a practical matter to call upon Dr. Gilkey to produce further evidence, if he denied — what we think tjie natural inference from these proofs — that he was engaged in his profession, at least as much as in anything else.

The order of adjudication is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 F. 196, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilkey-v-national-alumni-ca6-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack