Miller v. G & G Appliance Co.

Second Circuit

Miller v. G & G Appliance Co.

300 F.2d 754

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1962

DocketNo. 232, Docket 27275

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 F.2d 754 (Miller v. G & G Appliance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. G & G Appliance Co., 300 F.2d 754 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, reported at D.C., 197 F.Supp. 844, vacating an order of a referee in bankruptcy entered pursuant to Rule 7 of the Bankruptcy Rules of the District of Connecticut.¹ The facts, are stated in the opinion of the Court below. We affirm. Appellant’s waiver was sanctioned by 11 U.S.C. § 737(2) (1958), and his desire to escape from its consequences does not amount to “proper circumstances” to justify the referee’s modification of his order. See In re: Frischknecht, 223 F. 417 (2d Cir. 1915); In re: Harry Smith Machine Co., 232 F.2d 950 (9th Cir. 1956). In the light of this conclusion we do not reach the question of the jurisdiction of the referee to modify his previous order.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, reported at D.C., 197 F.Supp. 844, vacating an order of a referee in bankruptcy entered pursuant to Rule 7 of the Bankruptcy Rules of the District of Connecticut.¹ The facts, are stated in the opinion of the Court below. We affirm. Appellant’s waiver was sanctioned by 11 U.S.C. § 737(2) (1958), and his desire to escape from its consequences does not amount to “proper circumstances” to justify the referee’s modification of his order. See In re: Frischknecht, 223 F. 417 (2d Cir. 1915); In re: Harry Smith Machine Co., 232 F.2d 950 (9th Cir. 1956). In the light of this conclusion we do not reach the question of the jurisdiction of the referee to modify his previous order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 F.2d 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-g-g-appliance-co-ca2-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack