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 KELLY. FLORIDA NAT. BANK OF JACKSONVILLE v. KELLY, 1934 — 70 F.2d 730 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In re KELLY. FLORIDA NAT. BANK OF JACKSONVILLE v. KELLY
70 F.2d 730·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1934
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 KELLY. FLORIDA NAT. BANK OF JACKSONVILLE v. KELLY.
No. 7348.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 5, 1934.
George M. Powell, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.
E. J. L’Engle, J. W. Shands, and Edward McCarthy, Jr., all of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This application for leave to superintend and revise through appeal a decision of the District Court which upheld the referee in refusing to permit a creditor to examine the bankrupt and other witnesses under 11 USCA § 44 (a) is opposed by the bankrupt on the ground that his exemption has been ¡ allowed him and he has been discharged for more than a year prior to the application. The petition is vague as to the purposes of ■ the examination except as to the homestead^ and as to it appears to be based only on information derived from a newspaper article. A creditor has no absolute right to examine any one under 11 USCA § 44 (a), but the exercise of the power there granted lies in the discretion of the court. In re Andrews (D. C.) 130 F. 383; In re Weidenfeld (C. C. A.) 254 F. 677; In re National Grain Corporation (C. C. A.) 299 F. 597. The long delay and laches of the creditor and the absence of any definite and reliable showing as to what facts would be proven put this ease within the rule of discretion unabused.
The application for appeal is denied.