In re LESAIUS

In re LESAIUS. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. September 28, 1910.) No. 50, March Term, 1910. Bankruptcy (§ 468)—Review on Appeal—Reversal oe Order—Proceedings After Remand. Where an order of a District Court in bankruptcy has been reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal, it is annulled for all purposes, and cannot afterward be amended by the District Court. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Dec. Dig. § 468.*] Petition for Revision of Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In the matter of F. P. Lesaius, bankrupt. On petition to revise order of District Court; Henry Goodman, as trustee, being respondent Reversed. For prior proceedings, see 163 Fed. 614; 165 Fed. 889, 91 C. C. A. 567. R. L. Levy, for petitioner. C. A. Van Wormer, for respondent. Before BUFFINGTON and LANNING, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District Judge. Foi other cases see same topic & 5 number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes" [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. When this case was first before this court (Lesaius v. Goodman, 165 Fed. 889, 91 C. C. A. 567), we reversed the ordei of the District Court and remanded the case without prejudice to such further proceedings as justice might demand. After'the case had been remanded it was then before the District Court on the petition of the trustee to review the order of the referee. Either of two courses might then have been pursued: First, the trustee might have applied to the court to remand the case to'the referee to take additional proofs and rehear the case; or, second, he might have applied to the court for a rehearing on the petition to review. He did neither of these things. He asked the court, by a petition, to amend the order which this court had reversed. But there was no order of the District Court to be amended. It had been annulled by the order of this court, and stood for nothing. The order now before us is the so-called amendatory order of the court made upon the petition of the trustee. We do not see how it can be affirmed. We regret the necessity of sending the case back a second time. The order will be reversed; but, in view of the grave charges of fraud against the bankrupt, the case will be remanded with leave to the trustee to apply to the District Court, either for an order remanding the case to the referee for further proofs and a rehearing before the referee, or for a rehearing by the court on the trustee’s petition to review the referee’s order. No costs will be allowed' to either party in this court on this proceeding.