Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

217 F.2d 304

Docket No. 13693.

Beecher v. Smithson

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 11, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1954.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1954-10-11

2 counsel of record

Relies on Leviton Et Al. v. United States · Arens v. Village of Rogers · Cannon v. Ellis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1954-10-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1983

8 federal appellate ·

601954196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*305S. P. Beecher, in pro. per.

¶2John J. Ripple, Claude D. Randall, Spokane, Wash., for appellee.

¶3Before ORR, FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This appeal is one of a long series urged by a farmer-debtor whose real property has been administered for a number of years under § 75, sub. s, of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203, sub. s. Appellant has through all these proceedings acted as his own counsel. The courts, including this, have been more than conscientious in dealing with him, and because of the situation have probably extended him favors beyond his technical rights. Appellant is not a lawyer and has been inclined to insist that his rights are bounded only by his desires.

¶6 There has been a motion to dismiss this appeal because Beecher did not think it necessary to file an appeal bond as security for costs as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 73(c), 28 U.S.C.A. See Coursey v. International Harvester Co., 10 Cir., 109 F.2d 774, 777; In re Braker, 6 Cir., 127 F.2d 652; General Orders Bankruptcy No. 36, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. This defect was not cured by sending at a later date a personal check to the Clerk of this Court “under protest” for costs. The rules cannot be improvised by the litigant. Further, Beecher did not file timely a designation of the record. This motion to dismiss was continued until the appeal was heard. It is now granted.

¶7However, in view of the situation, all matters urged upon this Court have been examined and no merit has been found in any. The findings, conclusions and order of the trial court were correct. The patience and scrupulous care of this Court in dealing with this litigant are exemplary.1

/217/f2d/304 · .json · Public domain