In re Finkelstein

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Finkelstein

3 F.2d 1006, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 910

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided February 11, 1925·No. No. 7221·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

THOMPSON, District Judge.

The order of the referee certified for review was brought before the court upon a certificate of the referee. It appears by the record certified that the bankrupt did not file with the referee a petition for review in accordance with General Order XXVII. As the General Order is mandatory in requiring a petition of the party desiring a review, this court, in the absence of sueh a petition, has no authority to review the action of the referee. In re Russell (D. C.) 105 F. 501; In re Home Discount Co. (D. C.) 147 F. 538, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 168.

The application for review of the order of the referee will therefore be dismissed.

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

THOMPSON, District Judge.

The order of the referee certified for review was brought before the court upon a certificate of the referee. It appears by the record certified that the bankrupt did not file with the referee a petition for review in accordance with General Order XXVII. As the General Order is mandatory in requiring a petition of the party desiring a review, this court, in the absence of sueh a petition, has no authority to review the action of the referee. In re Russell (D. C.) 105 F. 501; In re Home Discount Co. (D. C.) 147 F. 538, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 168.

The application for review of the order of the referee will therefore be dismissed.

In re Finkelstein, 3 F.2d 1006, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 910 (E.D. Pa. 1925).

Pincite

3 F.2d 1006 (In re Finkelstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related