In re Semons

Second Circuit

In re Semons

140 F. 989, 72 C.C.A. 683, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3646

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided February 1, 1906·No. No. 110·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The bankrupt did not appeal from the order dismissing-his application for discharge. Such an order we held in Re Kuffler, 127 Fed. 125, 61 C. C. A. 259, was in substance an order denying discharge, and as such reviewable by appeal under Bankr. Act July‘1, 1898, c. 541, § 25, 30 Stat. 553 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3432]. Having elected not to review such order by appeal, he should not be allowed to Question its validity as an order denying discharge. Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The bankrupt did not appeal from the order dismissing-his application for discharge. Such an order we held in Re Kuffler, 127 Fed. 125, 61 C. C. A. 259, was in substance an order denying discharge, and as such reviewable by appeal under Bankr. Act July‘1, 1898, c. 541, § 25, 30 Stat. 553 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3432]. Having elected not to review such order by appeal, he should not be allowed to Question its validity as an order denying discharge. Order affirmed.

In re Semons, 140 F. 989, 72 C.C.A. 683, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3646 (2d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

140 F. 989 (In re Semons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related