Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 F.2d 1006

Docket No. 7221.

In re Finkelstein

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court

Decided February 11, 1925.)

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court · decided 1925-02-11

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1960

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on In re Home Discount Co. · In re Russell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-02-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bankruptcy <@=228 — District Court will not review order of referee on referee’s certificate, in absence of petition by party desiring review.

¶2District Court will not review order of referee, on referee’s certificate of review, in absence of petition for review by party desiring review, under General Order XXVII, such General Order being mandatory.

¶3In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Max Finkelstein, individually and trading as the Quaker Shoe Company, bankrupt. On certificate of review of order of referee.

¶4Dismissed.

¶5Reber, Granger & Montgomery and J. Howard Reber, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for trustee.

¶6Furth, Singer & Bortin and David Bor-tin, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for bankrupt.

¶7THOMPSON, District Judge.

¶8The order of the referee certified for review was brought before the court upon a certificate of the referee. It appears by the record certified that the bankrupt did not file with the referee a petition for review in accordance with General Order XXVII. As the General Order is mandatory in requiring a petition of the party desiring a review, this court, in the absence of sueh a petition, has no authority to review the action of the referee. In re Russell (D. C.) 105 F. 501; In re Home Discount Co. (D. C.) 147 F. 538, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 168.

¶9The application for review of the order of the referee will therefore be dismissed.

/3/f2d/1006 · .json · Public domain