In re Gustin

E.D. Michigan

In re Gustin

281 F. 320, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1485

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan

DecidedJune 2, 1922

DocketNo. 1168

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 F. 320 (In re Gustin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Gustin, 281 F. 320, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1485 (E.D. Mich. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

TUTTLE, District Judge.

This is a motion by the petitioning creditors to deny and to strike from the records certain pleadings filed by one of the other parties hereto, appearing as a creditor in opposition to the involuntary petition in bankruptcy. Prior, however, to the filing of such motion, a petition by such creditor for an order allowing an appeal to the Court of Appeals, assignments of error thereunder, and an order allowing such an appeal, had been entered herein by this court. As the effect of this was to transfer the jurisdiction of this court over this cause and its power to proceed further therein to the appellate court, this motion cannot be considered by me, at least unless and until the proceedings have been remanded for that purpose. In the meantime, any motions or petitions sought to be filed by the present petitioner, seeking the relief, here prayed, should he presented to the Court of Appeals. Draper v. Davis, 102 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 121; Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S. 359, 41 Sup. Ct. 522, 65 L. Ed. 990; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Loughmiller (D. C.) 193 Fed. 689; Sheeler v. Alexander (D. C.) 211 Fed. 544; Kendrick v. Roberts (D. C.) 214 Fed. 268; Purman v. Marsh, 49 App. D. C. 125, 261 Fed. 1005; Cochran v. Becker, 276 Fed. 280 (C. C. A. 8).

The present motion, therefore, must be denied.

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

TUTTLE, District Judge.

This is a motion by the petitioning creditors to deny and to strike from the records certain pleadings filed by one of the other parties hereto, appearing as a creditor in opposition to the involuntary petition in bankruptcy. Prior, however, to the filing of such motion, a petition by such creditor for an order allowing an appeal to the Court of Appeals, assignments of error thereunder, and an order allowing such an appeal, had been entered herein by this court. As the effect of this was to transfer the jurisdiction of this court over this cause and its power to proceed further therein to the appellate court, this motion cannot be considered by me, at least unless and until the proceedings have been remanded for that purpose. In the meantime, any motions or petitions sought to be filed by the present petitioner, seeking the relief, here prayed, should he presented to the Court of Appeals. Draper v. Davis, 102 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 121; Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S. 359, 41 Sup. Ct. 522, 65 L. Ed. 990; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Loughmiller (D. C.) 193 Fed. 689; Sheeler v. Alexander (D. C.) 211 Fed. 544; Kendrick v. Roberts (D. C.) 214 Fed. 268; Purman v. Marsh, 49 App. D. C. 125, 261 Fed. 1005; Cochran v. Becker, 276 Fed. 280 (C. C. A. 8).

The present motion, therefore, must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 F. 320, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gustin-mied-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack