Oregon Eilers Music House v. Sitton

Ninth Circuit

Oregon Eilers Music House v. Sitton

270 F. 915, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2481

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 14, 1921

DocketNos. 3529, 3548

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 270 F. 915 (Oregon Eilers Music House v. Sitton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oregon Eilers Music House v. Sitton, 270 F. 915, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2481 (9th Cir. 1921).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

[1] As the controversy involves facts as well as legal questions, petitioner is confined to a remedy by appeal under section 24a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9608), and as a consequence the motion of the respondent to dismiss the petition for revision is well taken and must be sustained. In re Loving, 224 U. S. 183, 32 Sup. Ct. 446, 56 L. Ed. 725; In re Craig Lumber Co. (C. C. A.) 266 Fed. 692.

[2, 3] We have carefully considered the whole case upon the issues of fact and law, and have regarded it as properly before us by appeal, and as the opinions of the District Court and the referee, and the findings made by the referee, fully cover the substantial issues of the controversy, we do not think it necessary to restate the evidence or to enter upon further discussions of the legal principles applicable thereto. We are satisfied that the case was rightly decided and that the court properly entertained jurisdiction. Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U. S. 113, 30 Sup. Ct. 372, 54 L. Ed. 402, 17 Ann. Cas. 969; Clere v. Union Trust Co., 224 Fed. 366, 140 C. C. A. 49; Hunter v. Baker Moor Vehicle Co. (D. C.) 225 Fed. 1015; Linn & Lane Timber Co. v. United States, 196 Fed. 593, 116 C. C. A. 267.

Respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. The decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

[1] As the controversy involves facts as well as legal questions, petitioner is confined to a remedy by appeal under section 24a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9608), and as a consequence the motion of the respondent to dismiss the petition for revision is well taken and must be sustained. In re Loving, 224 U. S. 183, 32 Sup. Ct. 446, 56 L. Ed. 725; In re Craig Lumber Co. (C. C. A.) 266 Fed. 692.

[2, 3] We have carefully considered the whole case upon the issues of fact and law, and have regarded it as properly before us by appeal, and as the opinions of the District Court and the referee, and the findings made by the referee, fully cover the substantial issues of the controversy, we do not think it necessary to restate the evidence or to enter upon further discussions of the legal principles applicable thereto. We are satisfied that the case was rightly decided and that the court properly entertained jurisdiction. Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U. S. 113, 30 Sup. Ct. 372, 54 L. Ed. 402, 17 Ann. Cas. 969; Clere v. Union Trust Co., 224 Fed. 366, 140 C. C. A. 49; Hunter v. Baker Moor Vehicle Co. (D. C.) 225 Fed. 1015; Linn & Lane Timber Co. v. United States, 196 Fed. 593, 116 C. C. A. 267.

Respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 F. 915, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oregon-eilers-music-house-v-sitton-ca9-1921.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack