Kaplan v. Dreveno

Seventh Circuit

Kaplan v. Dreveno

234 F. 866, 148 C.C.A. 464, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1916

DocketNo. 2271

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 234 F. 866 (Kaplan v. Dreveno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaplan v. Dreveno, 234 F. 866, 148 C.C.A. 464, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146 (7th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellees filed a petition seeking to have Benjamin, Charles, and Samuel Kaplan adjudged bankrupts as partners. From an order so adjudging them, Samuel Kaplan appeals.

[1] To justify the adjudication there must be evidence from which the court could properly find as a fact that Samuel Kaplan was a partner. It would not be enough that to various creditors he had held himself out as a partner, because, while‘an estoppel might give rights to those who' were misled, in order to give rights to all creditors he must have been in fact a partner.

[2, 3] The contention has been earnestly made that the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Samuel was in fact a partner. From the printed record we might have considerable difficulty in determining the truth as between contradictory witnesses. But the trial judge had the advantage of estimating their credibility by consid[867]*867ering their manner and conduct as witnesses. This is an appeal “as in equity” under section 25a. In equity cases, under the new rules, appeals present the controversy for determination de novo as under the old rules; but where the trial judge has heard the testimony in open court, his finding of fact should not be disturbed, unless the record very clearly discloses either a misapprehension of the testimony or a mistaken application of the law. American Rotary Valve Co. v. Moorehead, 226 Fed. 202, 141 C. C. A. 129.

In this case we find in the record sufficient evidence to warrant the finding that Samuel Kaplan was in fact a member of the partnership, and that there was no error in acting on this evidence.

The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellees filed a petition seeking to have Benjamin, Charles, and Samuel Kaplan adjudged bankrupts as partners. From an order so adjudging them, Samuel Kaplan appeals.

[1] To justify the adjudication there must be evidence from which the court could properly find as a fact that Samuel Kaplan was a partner. It would not be enough that to various creditors he had held himself out as a partner, because, while‘an estoppel might give rights to those who' were misled, in order to give rights to all creditors he must have been in fact a partner.

[2, 3] The contention has been earnestly made that the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that Samuel was in fact a partner. From the printed record we might have considerable difficulty in determining the truth as between contradictory witnesses. But the trial judge had the advantage of estimating their credibility by consid[867]*867ering their manner and conduct as witnesses. This is an appeal “as in equity” under section 25a. In equity cases, under the new rules, appeals present the controversy for determination de novo as under the old rules; but where the trial judge has heard the testimony in open court, his finding of fact should not be disturbed, unless the record very clearly discloses either a misapprehension of the testimony or a mistaken application of the law. American Rotary Valve Co. v. Moorehead, 226 Fed. 202, 141 C. C. A. 129.

In this case we find in the record sufficient evidence to warrant the finding that Samuel Kaplan was in fact a member of the partnership, and that there was no error in acting on this evidence.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F. 866, 148 C.C.A. 464, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-dreveno-ca7-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack