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 PALESTINE, 1935 — 75 F.2d 500 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
In re PALESTINE
75 F.2d 500·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1935
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 PALESTINE.
No. 127.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 18, 1935.
William Edelson, of New York City (Bernard Breitbart, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Harold D. Toomey, of Mt. Vernon, N. Y., for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was adjudicated a bankrupt September 18, 1933. Among her creditors was the appellee. The appellant was examined before the referee, and thereafter filed a petition for discharge in bankruptcy. This was referred to the referee in the usual course. All creditors, including the, ap-pellee, were notified to attend; on February 7, 1934, and show cause why the discharge should not be granted. On February 7,1934, the application for discharge was heard. None of the creditors listed in the schedules appeared in opposition except the appellee, who appeared through her attorneys, and-filed a notice of appearance stating that she desired to file specifications of objections to the discharge of the bankrupt. No specifications of the grounds of the appellee’s objections to the discharge were filed on February 7, 1934, the return day. However, the time was extended by allowing appellee two days within which to file such specifications. The bankrupt moved to dismiss the specifications because not filed as required by General Order 32 of the United States Supreme Court (as amended in 1933, 28 US CA § 53) on the return day. The appellant’s motion was denied, and an order entered. This appeal was then taken from the order.
The motion should have been granted. In re Reichert (C. C. A.) 73 F.(2d) 56, affirmed Lerner v. First Wis. Nat. Bank (Lawyers’ County Trust Co. v. Reichert) (February 4, 1935) 55 S. Ct. 360, 79 L. Ed.
Order reversed.