In re La Rosa

Second Circuit

In re La Rosa

6 F.2d 1021, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2197

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1925

DocketNo. 266

StatusPublished

This text of 6 F.2d 1021 (In re La Rosa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re La Rosa, 6 F.2d 1021, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2197 (2d Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is sufficient to refer to Hyman v. Trow, etc., Co. (C. C. A.) 261 F. 991, In re Aarons & Co., 193 F. 646, 113 C. C. A. 514, and In re American, etc., Co., 173 F. 489, 97 C. C. A. 486, to show that either in bankruptcy or in an equity receivership the facts shown were whoHy insufficient to justify rescission. Petitioner showed nothing except that he had sold the goods in the ordinary course of trade, and did not even undertake to bear the burden of proof which under the cases cited lay upon him. Order reversed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is sufficient to refer to Hyman v. Trow, etc., Co. (C. C. A.) 261 F. 991, In re Aarons & Co., 193 F. 646, 113 C. C. A. 514, and In re American, etc., Co., 173 F. 489, 97 C. C. A. 486, to show that either in bankruptcy or in an equity receivership the facts shown were whoHy insufficient to justify rescission. Petitioner showed nothing except that he had sold the goods in the ordinary course of trade, and did not even undertake to bear the burden of proof which under the cases cited lay upon him. Order reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F.2d 1021, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-la-rosa-ca2-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack