In re Marks Bros.

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Marks Bros.

135 F. 448, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 323

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided February 24, 1905·No. No. 1,687·Published

Opinion

HOLLAND, District Judge.

The sixth reason for a new trial in this case is as follows:

“The learned trial judge erred in his charge to the jury wherein he charged them that it was necessary, in order for them to find a verdict for the respondents, to find that the petitioning creditors had secured control of the judgment of Frederick Geiger, under which the execution issued which was averred to be the act of bankruptcy.”

Upon the authority of In re Williams, 14 N. B. R. 132, Fed. Cas. No. 17,706, Clark v. Henne, 11 A. B. R. 595, 127 Fed. 288, 62 C. C. A. 172, and Simonson v. Sinsheimer, 95 Fed. 954, 37 C. C. A. 337, it is clear that this part of the charge of the court is error, and a new trial is therefore granted.

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

HOLLAND, District Judge.

The sixth reason for a new trial in this case is as follows:

“The learned trial judge erred in his charge to the jury wherein he charged them that it was necessary, in order for them to find a verdict for the respondents, to find that the petitioning creditors had secured control of the judgment of Frederick Geiger, under which the execution issued which was averred to be the act of bankruptcy.”

Upon the authority of In re Williams, 14 N. B. R. 132, Fed. Cas. No. 17,706, Clark v. Henne, 11 A. B. R. 595, 127 Fed. 288, 62 C. C. A. 172, and Simonson v. Sinsheimer, 95 Fed. 954, 37 C. C. A. 337, it is clear that this part of the charge of the court is error, and a new trial is therefore granted.

In re Marks Bros., 135 F. 448, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 323 (E.D. Pa. 1905).

Pincite

135 F. 448 (In re Marks Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related