Wells v. Sharp

Eighth Circuit

Wells v. Sharp

208 F. 399, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1704

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 1913

DocketNo. 120

StatusPublished

This text of 208 F. 399 (Wells v. Sharp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells v. Sharp, 208 F. 399, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1704 (8th Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

ADAMS, Circuit Judge.

This was an original petition to revise an order or judgment made by the District Court of South Dakota in bankruptcy, in the matter of the Plymouth Elevator Company, bankrupt. On examination of the record we find that the order and judgment complained of resulted from a consideration of disputed facts, and depended upon the findings made thereon. In such circumstances the proper remedy is an appeal under the provisions of section 24 (a) of Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 553 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3431), and not a petition to revise under section 24 (b). Pursuing a commop practice, the petitioner out of abundant precaution prosecuted concur-. rently with this petition an appeal which properly presented all the questions attempted to be presented by this petition, and that appeal has been disposed of at this term of court. 208 Fed. 393. This petition therefore must be denied.

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

ADAMS, Circuit Judge.

This was an original petition to revise an order or judgment made by the District Court of South Dakota in bankruptcy, in the matter of the Plymouth Elevator Company, bankrupt. On examination of the record we find that the order and judgment complained of resulted from a consideration of disputed facts, and depended upon the findings made thereon. In such circumstances the proper remedy is an appeal under the provisions of section 24 (a) of Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 553 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3431), and not a petition to revise under section 24 (b). Pursuing a commop practice, the petitioner out of abundant precaution prosecuted concur-. rently with this petition an appeal which properly presented all the questions attempted to be presented by this petition, and that appeal has been disposed of at this term of court. 208 Fed. 393. This petition therefore must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F. 399, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-sharp-ca8-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack