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 REIS RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., Inc., 1926 — 18 F.2d 347 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
In re REIS RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., Inc.
18 F.2d 347·United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York·1926
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 REIS RUBBER PRODUCTS CO., Inc.
(District Court, E. D. New York.
July 1, 1926.)
Bankruptcy <@=>126 — Petition to review is appropriate for review of election of trustee.
Appropriate way of reviewing proceedings in election of trustee is by petition for review of order of referee approving appointment.
In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the Reis Rubber Products Company, Inc., bankrupt. On motion of certain creditors for relief in the matter of electing a trustee.
Motion denied.
Eugene S. Bibb, of New York City, for the motion.
David W. Kahn, of- New York City, for petitioning creditor.
Phillips, Leibell & Fielding and Moses & Singer, all of New York City, for other creditors.
[MAJORITY — MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.]
MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.
The petitioners seek the following relief: “Allowing certain claims voted improperly for the election of a trustee, etc., and for an order adjudging said claims as improperly voted, and adjudging petitioner as having a majority in number and amount of the claims entitled to vote, and as therefore entitled to elect a trustee herein.”
It appears from the report of the referee that upon the vote for trustee the claims voted for Charles H. Kelby .were in a majority in amount, and that the claims voted for J. Russell Sprague were a majority in number, whereupon the referee declared that neither Kelby nor Sprague had secured a majority in number or amount of the claims filed and allowed, and that as a consequence no election had resulted. Thereafter the referee ruled that, no election having resulted from the vote of trustee, he would appoint Charles H. Kelby, the receiver, as trustee. The referee further certifies that no petition to review the order of the referee has ever been filed or granted by him.
I do not find that the referee has made any error, or that the claims were improperly allowed. The appropriate way of reviewing the proceedings in the election of a trustee is by a petition for review of the order of the referee approving the appointment of the trustee by the creditors.
The motion is therefore denied. Settle order on notice.