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.
FINANCE & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Henry W. OPPENHIMER, Trustee in Bankruptcy for W. A. Lee, Trading as National Motor Company, Bankrupt, Defendant in Error, 1926 — 15 F.2d 1011 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
FINANCE & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Henry W. OPPENHIMER, Trustee in Bankruptcy for W. A. Lee, Trading as National Motor Company, Bankrupt, Defendant in Error
15 F.2d 1011·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·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
FINANCE & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Henry W. OPPENHIMER, Trustee in Bankruptcy for W. A. Lee, Trading as National Motor Company, Bankrupt, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
October 30, 1926.)
No. 2506.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, in Bankruptcy; D. Lawrence Groner, Judge.
S. M. Brandt, of Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff in error.
Joseph M. Hurt, Jr., of Richmond, Va., for defendant in error.
Before WADDILL, ROSE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This case has been before us twice. What we had to say about it at its first presentation will be found in 5 F. (2d) 486. When, in pursuance to our man•date, it was again tried below, a jury trial was waived in writing. The learned District Judge was thus made the trier of the facts, and he found that the value of the property converted by the appellant was $4,190.99. There was sufficient evidence.to support this conclusion, and its accuracy is not reviewable here.
On the fundamental question as to the relative rights of the trustee and the appellant, the case made at the second trial did not differ from the one upon which we had already passed. None of the exceptional circumstances which sometimes justify a departure from the rule of the law of the case are found here.
Affirmed.