In re Wilde's Sons

In re SAMUEL WILDE'S SONS

In re Wilde's Sons, 144 F. 972 (2d Cir. 1906)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: February 1, 1906
Docket: No. 80
Judges: Coxe, Lacombe, Townsend
Citations: 144 F. 97275 C.C.A. 6011906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3924

Cited by 9

Headnotes

Bankruptcy — Review op Referee’s Decision — Powers of Court. Under the very broad provisions of Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, §2 (10.), 30 Stat. 546 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421], a District Court, in reviewing an order or report of a referee, may properly consider any point presented by the record before it, whether or not such point was discussed before or by the referee. [Ed. Note. — Appeal and review in bankruptcy cases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.]

Summary

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This cause comes here upon appeal from an order of the District Court, Southern District of New York, reversing an order of the referee in bankruptcy, and allowing a claim of II. C. Bennett & Co. against the bankrupt’s estate. The opinion of the District Judge is reported in 133 Fed. 562.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon the point of practice raised preliminarily to the main argument, we are clearly of the opinion that, when a District Court is reviewing an order or report of a referee in bankruptcy, under the very broad provisions of Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2 (10), 30 Stat. 546 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421], it may properly consider any point presented by the record then before it, whether such point was or was not discussed before or by the referee. .

We are further of the opinion that the order of the District Court should be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

In re Elmore Cotton Mills217 F. 810 (S.D. Ala. 1914)
In re Kellar192 F. 830 (1st Cir. 1912)
In re Quaker Drug Co.204 F. 689 (W.D. Wash. 1913)
Walsh Construction, Inc., Bankrupt. United States of America v. Alaska National Bank of the North and Paul Burlingame, Trustee, in the Matter of Cecilia Ruth Walsh, Gerald Patrick Walsh, D/B/A Beaver Builders, Bankrupts669 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Luther225 F.2d 499 (10th Cir. 1955)
Rosehedge Corporation v. Millie Sterett274 F.2d 786 (9th Cir. 1960)

Most recent

Walsh Construction, Inc., Bankrupt. United States of America v. Alaska National Bank of the North and Paul Burlingame, Trustee, in the Matter of Cecilia Ruth Walsh, Gerald Patrick Walsh, D/B/A Beaver Builders, Bankrupts669 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Alaska National Bank669 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1982)
Rosehedge Corporation v. Millie Sterett274 F.2d 786 (9th Cir. 1960)
United States v. Frank Luther, Trustee of the Garden Grain & Seed Co., Inc., Frank Luther, Trustee of the Garden Grain & Seed Co., Inc. v. United States of America . In the Matter of Garden Grain and Seed Co., Inc., Bankrupt (Two Cases)225 F.2d 499 (10th Cir. 1955)
United States v. Luther225 F.2d 499 (10th Cir. 1955)
Tinney v. Katcher134 F.2d 833 (6th Cir. 1943)

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.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list