Morrison v. Regus

Fifth Circuit

Morrison v. Regus

22 F.2d 804, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3477

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1927

DocketNo. 5025

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 F.2d 804 (Morrison v. Regus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrison v. Regus, 22 F.2d 804, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3477 (5th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree affirming an order of the referee directing bankrupts, the appellants, to turn over to the trustee a stated sum of money.

It is suggested in this court for the first time that the regular referee in bankruptcy who acted in the case was not authorized to do so, because no order referring the ease to him was made. When the trial judge acted in the matter, he had before him the evidence taken -before the referee, and no objection was made to that evidence on the ground that it was adduced before a referee who had no authority in the premises. If the objection had been made in the lower court, it could have been remedied by an order referring the case to the referee who had acted in the matter without objection.

The question whether the evidence on which the court itself acted in rendering the decree appealed from was subject to objection on the ground now suggested will not be considered by this court, because it was not raised in the court below, which had jurisdiction to render that decree. 2 R. C. L. 69. The record does not contain the evidence on which the court acted. This being so, it is to he presumed that the evidence warranted the decree appealed from.

The decree is affirmed.

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

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree affirming an order of the referee directing bankrupts, the appellants, to turn over to the trustee a stated sum of money.

It is suggested in this court for the first time that the regular referee in bankruptcy who acted in the case was not authorized to do so, because no order referring the ease to him was made. When the trial judge acted in the matter, he had before him the evidence taken -before the referee, and no objection was made to that evidence on the ground that it was adduced before a referee who had no authority in the premises. If the objection had been made in the lower court, it could have been remedied by an order referring the case to the referee who had acted in the matter without objection.

The question whether the evidence on which the court itself acted in rendering the decree appealed from was subject to objection on the ground now suggested will not be considered by this court, because it was not raised in the court below, which had jurisdiction to render that decree. 2 R. C. L. 69. The record does not contain the evidence on which the court acted. This being so, it is to he presumed that the evidence warranted the decree appealed from.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F.2d 804, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-regus-ca5-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack