Revere Sugar Refinery v. Pennsylvania Trust Co. of Pittsburgh

Third Circuit

Revere Sugar Refinery v. Pennsylvania Trust Co. of Pittsburgh

67 F.2d 1008, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4810

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 22, 1933

DocketNo. 5085

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 F.2d 1008 (Revere Sugar Refinery v. Pennsylvania Trust Co. of Pittsburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Revere Sugar Refinery v. Pennsylvania Trust Co. of Pittsburgh, 67 F.2d 1008, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4810 (3d Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this bankruptcy case the referee surcharged the trustee for alleged negligence in administering the bankrupt’s estate. On certificate, Judge Schoonmaker reversed the action of the referee and filed an opinion in which he fully discussed every phase of the case and set forth at length his reasons for so holding. (D. C.) 2 F. Supp. 524. After a study of the proofs and due consideration of the arguments and briefs of counsel, we find ourselves in accord with his action. As the case rests wholly on its own facts, and no principles of law or practice are involved, we avoid needless restatement of what the judge has already once said and limit ourselves to affirming the court’s order.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In this bankruptcy case the referee surcharged the trustee for alleged negligence in administering the bankrupt’s estate. On certificate, Judge Schoonmaker reversed the action of the referee and filed an opinion in which he fully discussed every phase of the case and set forth at length his reasons for so holding. (D. C.) 2 F. Supp. 524. After a study of the proofs and due consideration of the arguments and briefs of counsel, we find ourselves in accord with his action. As the case rests wholly on its own facts, and no principles of law or practice are involved, we avoid needless restatement of what the judge has already once said and limit ourselves to affirming the court’s order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F.2d 1008, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/revere-sugar-refinery-v-pennsylvania-trust-co-of-pittsburgh-ca3-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack