In re Lawrence
166 F. 239, 92 C.C.A. 251, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4859
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 15, 1908·No. No. 72·Published·Cited by 5 cases
Opinion
The following is the opinion of
A petition for review having been filed herein on behalf of Abram Sebring, the above-named claimant, to reverse tito decision and report to the referee in bankruptcy herein disallowing the claim of said Abram Sebring, and the aforesaid referee having made his report and certified to this court all the evidence and papers in relation thereto, and after hearing Ralph Earl Prime, Jr., Esq., on behalf of the aforesaid claimant in support of said petition and motion, and Albert Tieynaud, Esq., on behalf of the trustee in opposition thereto, and after due consideration of the aforesaid decision and report of the referee, and on motion of Albert Reynand, Iisq., attorney for the aforesaid trustee, it is ordered that the said petition and motion be, and the same hereby are, denied, and the aforesaid decision and report of the referee disallowing the claim of said Abram Sebring are hereby affirmed.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed on report of referee in bankruptcy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In re Lawrence, 166 F. 239, 92 C.C.A. 251, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4859 (2d Cir. 1908).
166 F. 239 (In re Lawrence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Equipment Acceptance Corp. v. Arwood Can Mfg. Co.
117 F.2d 442 (Sixth Circuit, 1941)
Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Escoe
1937 OK 81 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Grand Nat. Bank of St. Louis
69 F.2d 177 (Eighth Circuit, 1934)
Rutherford v. Elliott
23 F.2d 250 (Sixth Circuit, 1928)
All v. All
250 F. 120 (E.D. South Carolina, 1918)