In re Malschick

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Malschick

206 F. 71, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1379

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 27, 1913

DocketNo. 3,915

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 F. 71 (In re Malschick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.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 Malschick, 206 F. 71, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1379 (E.D. Pa. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

The only question raised by this certificate is whether the referee (Richard S. Hunter, Esq.) erred in “not granting the motion of the bankrupts for a rehearing of the proceedings and re-examination of the bankrupts.” Manifestly it must often be impossible for the District Court to know what has taken place before the referee. Statements and arguments are often made that do not get upon the record, although they may have been important and may have influenced or even determined the action of the referee. For this and for other reasons the orders and proceedings before a referee are ordinarily presumed to be correct unless they are clearly proved to be erroneous. In the present case the referee distinctly states that the case had been closed, and that he denied the bankrupts’ motion on that ground. As I can find nothing in the record to show that this statement is incorrect, I accept it as true and sustain the exercise of the referee’s discretion.

The order of April 24, 1913, is affirmed.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

The only question raised by this certificate is whether the referee (Richard S. Hunter, Esq.) erred in “not granting the motion of the bankrupts for a rehearing of the proceedings and re-examination of the bankrupts.” Manifestly it must often be impossible for the District Court to know what has taken place before the referee. Statements and arguments are often made that do not get upon the record, although they may have been important and may have influenced or even determined the action of the referee. For this and for other reasons the orders and proceedings before a referee are ordinarily presumed to be correct unless they are clearly proved to be erroneous. In the present case the referee distinctly states that the case had been closed, and that he denied the bankrupts’ motion on that ground. As I can find nothing in the record to show that this statement is incorrect, I accept it as true and sustain the exercise of the referee’s discretion.

The order of April 24, 1913, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 F. 71, 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-malschick-paed-1913.

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack