TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Hawley

In re Hawley, 116 F. 428 (N.D. Iowa 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, N.D. Iowa · Federal District Courts
Decided
June 12, 1902
Judges
Shiras
Citations
116 F. 4281902 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163
Headnotes
1. Bankruptcy—Procedure—Review of Rulings of Referee. Tbe ruling of a referee in bankruptcy allowing the claim of a creditor cannot be brought into the district court for review by filing exceptions thereto in that court.
Summary
In Bankruptcy. On exceptions filed in this court to ruling of referee with respect to a claim of the Mallory Commission Company, and motion- to strike such exceptions from the files.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Shiras

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SHIRAS, District Judge.

The questions presented by the several ■objections filed to the claim of the Mallory Commission Company were presented to and decided by the referee on October 15, 1901; and the objections to payment of a dividend upon the claim as allowed were overruled on January 7, 1902. The creditors knew the action taken by the referee upon the objections filed to the allowance of the claim ■of the Mallory Company, as is shown by the recitals in the petition filed by the creditors, asking for a declaration of a dividend, and which is found on page 580 of the record. It does not appear that the creditors asked for or obtained a certification of any question connected with this claim by the referee, nor did the creditors petition for a review of the ruling of the referee under the provisions of general order 27 ( 89 Fed. xi ). The only action taken by the creditors contesting the claim wa's to file in this court on June 6, 1902, certain exceptions to the rulings of the referee. Such action, however, does not bring before the court for review the rulings and decisions of the referee. This case is still pending before the referee, and his rulings •on questions arising during the progress of the case cannot be brought before the judge of the district court- by simply filing in this court exceptions to such rulings.

The motion to strike such exceptions from the files is therefore .granted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1905: 11906: 11909: 21916: 11917: 119052026peak 1909 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Romine138 F. 837 (N.D.W. Va. 1905)
  2. Shimer v. Powell237 F. 793 (3d Cir. 1916)
  3. In re Clark Coal & Coke Co.173 F. 658 (M.D. Penn. 1909)
  4. Bank of Ravenswood v. Johnson143 F. 463 (4th Cir. 1906)
  5. In re Avoca Silk Co.241 F. 607 (M.D. Penn. 1917)
  6. Craddock-Terry Co. v. Kaufman175 F. 303 (W.D. Tex. 1909)

Most recent

  1. In re Avoca Silk Co.241 F. 607 (M.D. Penn. 1917)
  2. Shimer v. Powell237 F. 793 (3d Cir. 1916)
  3. Craddock-Terry Co. v. Kaufman175 F. 303 (W.D. Tex. 1909)
  4. In re Clark Coal & Coke Co.173 F. 658 (M.D. Penn. 1909)
  5. Bank of Ravenswood v. Johnson143 F. 463 (4th Cir. 1906)
  6. In re Romine138 F. 837 (N.D.W. Va. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list