In re Kinsbursky

W.D. Pennsylvania

In re Kinsbursky

26 F.2d 91, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 6, 1928

DocketNo. 13949

StatusPublished

This text of 26 F.2d 91 (In re Kinsbursky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Kinsbursky, 26 F.2d 91, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161 (W.D. Pa. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

GIBSON, District Judge.

The above-entitled case was referred to the referee of Crawford county, special master. A petition was filed on behalf of the receiver, praying that a certain member of the bar of this court, who represented the creditors who filed the petition, be appointed attorney for the receiver.' The referee refused to make the appointment, being of the opinion that the receiver, himself an attorney, was not in need, or at least not in immediate need, of counsel. Thereupon, at _ the request of the receiver, the matter was certified to this court. [1,2] The attorney suggested by the receiver for appointment as counsel is, in our opinion, both able and reliable. Nevertheless we feel that the refusal of the referee to appoint him must be sustained. The necessity for counsel in a bankruptcy ease, and the proper person for appointment as counsel, are both matters within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court. No abuse of that discretion has .been disclosed by the present record, and we shall therefore make an order dismissing the exceptions to the order of the referee and sustaining the referee’s action.

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

GIBSON, District Judge.

The above-entitled case was referred to the referee of Crawford county, special master. A petition was filed on behalf of the receiver, praying that a certain member of the bar of this court, who represented the creditors who filed the petition, be appointed attorney for the receiver.' The referee refused to make the appointment, being of the opinion that the receiver, himself an attorney, was not in need, or at least not in immediate need, of counsel. Thereupon, at _ the request of the receiver, the matter was certified to this court. [1,2] The attorney suggested by the receiver for appointment as counsel is, in our opinion, both able and reliable. Nevertheless we feel that the refusal of the referee to appoint him must be sustained. The necessity for counsel in a bankruptcy ease, and the proper person for appointment as counsel, are both matters within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court. No abuse of that discretion has .been disclosed by the present record, and we shall therefore make an order dismissing the exceptions to the order of the referee and sustaining the referee’s action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F.2d 91, 1928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kinsbursky-pawd-1928.