S. P. BEECHER, APPELLANT,
v.
HOMER SMITHSON, TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appeal is dismissed due to procedural defects, but the court found no merit in the appellant's arguments.
Appellant, a farmer-debtor acting as his own counsel, appealed a decision related to his bankruptcy proceedings. The appeal was filed without the requ…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appeal Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This 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.
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.
However, 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
. Beecher v. Federal Land Bank of Spokane, 9 Cir., 143 F. 2d 580; Id., 9 Cir., 146 F. 2d 934 (2 cases); Id., 9 Cir., 146 F. 2d 940; Id., 9 Cir., 146 F. 2d 1000; Id., 9 Cir., 153 F. 2d 982, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 869, 66 S.Ct. 1376, 90 L.Ed. 1639 and 328 U.S. 871, 66 S.Ct. 1364, 90 L.Ed. 1641, rehearing denied 329 U.S. 822, 67 S.Ct. 34, 91 L.Ed. 699; Id., 9 Cir., 153 F. 2d 987, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 871, 66 S.Ct. 1364, 90 L.Ed. 1641, rehearing denied 329 U.S. 819, 67 S.Ct. 28, 91 L.Ed. 697; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 156 F. 2d 220; Id., 9 Cir., 160 F. 2d 294; Id., 9 Cir., 160 F. 2d 296; Beecher v. Federal Land Bank of Spokane, 9 Cir., 166 F. 2d 85; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 184 F. 2d 498; Id., 9 Cir., 184 F. 2d 502; Id., 9 Cir., 184 F. 2d 504; Beecher v. United States, 9 Cir., 184 F. 2d 506; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 187 F. 2d 448; In the Matter of Beecher, 9 Cir., 187 F. 2d 858 (2 cases); Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 187 F. 2d 858; Id., 9 Cir., 187 F. 2d 859; In re Beecher, 9 Cir., 189 F. 2d 604; In re Beecher, 9 Cir., 189 F. 2d 604-605; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 189 F. 2d 605; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 189 F. 2d 606; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 189 F. 2d 607; Id., 9 Cir., 191 F. 2d 812; Id., 9 Cir., 192 F. 2d 10, certiorari denied, 343 U.S. 953, 72 S.Ct. 1048, 96 L.Ed. 1354; Id., 344 U.S. 886, 73 S.Ct. 187, 97 L.Ed. 686; Beecher v. Smithson, 9 Cir., 205 F. 2d 113; Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 9 Cir., 209 F. 2d 20; Id., 9 Cir., 211 F. 2d 158, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 949, 74 S.Ct. 649, 98 L.Ed. -, rehearing denied 347 U.S. 964, 74 S. Ct. 712, 98 L.Ed.-.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fred Parks for Gulf Transp. Co. v. B. F. Leaman & Sons, Inc., 279 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1960)
-
Powers v. Citizens Union Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 329 F.2d 507 (6th Cir. 1964)
-
Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 217 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (45 total)
- Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 189 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1951)
- Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 184 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1950)
- Beecher v. Fed. Land Bank of Spokane, 146 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1944)
- Beecher v. Fed. Land Bank of Spokane, 153 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1945)
- Beecher v. Fed. Land Bank of Spokane, 153 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 1945)
- Beecher v. Leavenworth State Bank, 192 F.2d 10 (9th Cir. 1951)
- Lieberman v. United States, 328 U.S. 869 (U.S. 1946)
- Kar Eng'g Co., Inc. v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 328 U.S. 869 (U.S. 1946)
- In re Braker. Hyde Park Lumber Co. v. W. Norwood Bldg. & Loan Co., 127 F.2d 652 (6th Cir. 1942)
- Beecher v. Fed. Land Bank of Spokane, 143 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1944)