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.
REVERE SUGAR REFINERY et al., Creditors, Appellants, v. PENNSYLVANIA TRUST COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Jacob Marcus and Benjamin Marcus, Individually and as Partners Trading as MARCUS BROTHERS, Bankrupts, Appellees, 1933 — 67 F.2d 1008 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
REVERE SUGAR REFINERY et al., Creditors, Appellants, v. PENNSYLVANIA TRUST COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Jacob Marcus and Benjamin Marcus, Individually and as Partners Trading as MARCUS BROTHERS, Bankrupts, Appellees
67 F.2d 1008·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1933
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
REVERE SUGAR REFINERY et al., Creditors, Appellants, v. PENNSYLVANIA TRUST COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Jacob Marcus and Benjamin Marcus, Individually and as Partners Trading as MARCUS BROTHERS, Bankrupts, Appellees.
No. 5085.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Dec. 22, 1933.
Sidney J. Watts and Baker & Watts, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.
Oliver K. Eaton, Lewis M. Alpern, and Duff, Scott & Smith, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAYIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In this bankruptcy case the referee surcharged the trustee for alleged negligence in administering the bankrupt’s estate. On certificate, Judge Schoonmaker reversed the action of the referee and filed an opinion in which he fully discussed every phase of the case and set forth at length his reasons for so holding. (D. C.) 2 F. Supp. 524. After a study of the proofs and due consideration of the arguments and briefs of counsel, we find ourselves in accord with his action. As the case rests wholly on its own facts, and no principles of law or practice are involved, we avoid needless restatement of what the judge has already once said and limit ourselves to affirming the court’s order.