DAVID
v.
HUBBARD, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY; AND SAME V. SAME
DAVID
HUBBARD, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY; AND SAME V. SAME
280 U.S. 514
Supreme Court of the United States (1929)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The motions for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis are denied. The Court has examined the unprinted records submitted in support of the petitions for certiorari and finds that the attacks upon the action of the court below are without any substantial merit. For this-reason the petitions for writs of certiorari are denied, and the clerk is directed to enter the usual order with respect to the payment of costs already incurred, as provided in the order of October 29, 1926.
Mr. Elwood G. Hubert for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Faerstein v. Moore, 58 F.2d 942 (9th Cir. 1932)…so, In re Greek Mfg. Co. (D. C.) 164 F. 211; In re Marks (D. C.) 171 F. 281; In re Avoca Silk Co. (D. C.) 241 F. 607; Matter of J. W. Renshaw’s Sons, Bankrupt (D. C.) 3 F.(2d) 75; Matter of Wm. L. David (C. C. A.) 33 F.(2d) 748; David v. Hubbard, 280 U. S. 514, 50 S. Ct. 19, 74 L. Ed. 585. That the procedure of review is plainly defined and power limited in the interest of regularity and for the common good is clearly stated by Judge Sawtelle of this court, sitting as District Judge, in Re Octave Mining…
-
In re Chelsea Hotel Corp., 241 F.2d 846 (3d Cir. 1957)…sub. c, 11 U.S.C.A. § 67, sub. c, of the Bankruptcy Act the order of a referee is reviewable by the District Court and its jurisdiction to review such orders is exclusive. In re David, 3 Cir., 1929, 33 F. 2d 748, certiorari denied David v. Hubbard, 280 U.S. 514, 50 S.Ct. 19, 74 L.Ed. 585; In re Miller, 6 Cir., 1940, 111 F. 2d 28; California State Board of Equalization v. Sampsell, 9 Cir., 1952, 196 F. 2d 252. See MacNeil v. Gargill, 1 Cir., 1956, 231 F. 2d 33, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 833, 77 S.Ct. 50, 1…
-
New Jersey v. N.Y. City, 290 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1933)…urious matter into the ocean or other waters of the United States off the coast of New Jersey and from otherwise polluting its waters and its beaches. Defendant answered, raising issues of fact. The Court appointed Edward K. Campbell special master, 280 U.S. 514, who took the evidence and reported the same, together with his findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for a decree. He found that defendant had created and was continuing to create a public nuisance upon beaches and other propert…