Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

94 F.2d 978

Docket No. 6406.

Fry v. Shaeffer

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 7, 1938.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1938-02-07

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1939

2 counsel of record

Relies on Beckley Water Company v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia · Bank of Eureka v. Partington

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1938-02-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John N. Landberg, of. Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

¶2Joseph R. Byars, of Lancaster, Pa., for appellee.

¶3Before BUFFINGTON and BIGGS, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District^ Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The questions raised require an examination of the testimony taken before the conciliation commissioner or referee and his report in the premises to the trial court. Such evidence and such report are not part of the record, nor is there any agreed statement of the evidence or of the report by the parties as to what they respectively contain. See Equity Rules Nos. 75 and 77, 226 U.S. 672, 286 U.S. 570, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, and General Order in Bankruptcy No. 36; 288 U.S. 632, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. Not having such before us, we indulge the presumption that the missing items support the decree made by the District Court. See Bank of Eureka v. Partington, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 587, 590.

¶6Accordingly, the decree of the court below is affirmed.

/94/f2d/978 · .json · Public domain