Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In re FONTANA MERCANTILE CO., Inc. HAAS BARUCH & CO. et al. v. CASEY et al., 1933 — 62 F.2d 1047 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
In re FONTANA MERCANTILE CO., Inc. HAAS BARUCH & CO. et al. v. CASEY et al.
62 F.2d 1047·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1933
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and ST. SURE, District Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re FONTANA MERCANTILE CO., Inc. HAAS BARUCH & CO. et al. v. CASEY et al.
No. 6971.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 27, 1933.
Craig & Weller and Thomas S. Tobin, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Hiram E. Casey, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and ST. SURE, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — WILBUR, Circuit Judge.]
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
The application of creditors whose claims have been disallowed to appeal from the order of the District Court affirming the order of the referee appointing E. W. Bailly as the duly elected trustee in bankruptcy, based upon the claims that the referee erred in disallowing the appellants’ claims and in allowing the claims of the creditors whose votes elected the trustee, will not be allowed. The orders of the District Court allowing or rejecting claims are appealable under 11 USCA § 48. The court could not properly review these matters upon an appeal from an order approving the appointment of a trustee, where such approval is based upon his election by a majority of the creditors whose claims had been allowed.