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.
Bankruptcy
Israel AGRON, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. R. E. STEEDLE, Trustee, Appellee
36 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1930
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
Israel AGRON, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. R. E. STEEDLE, Trustee, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 8, 1930.
No. 4073.
Samuel Kaufman, of Newark, N. J. (Bilder & Bilder, of Newark, N. J., and Paul M. Salsburg, of Atlantic City, N. J., of counsel), for appellant.
Jos. B. Perskie, of Atlantic City, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Israel Agron prayed an order on the latter to turn over to him a valuable lot of furs, which were in the bankrupt’s possession shortly before the bankruptcy. The bankrupt admitted to have bad tbe furs, but •averred bis store bad been robbed and the furs taken. Tbe referee heard tbe proofs and found as a fact: “I must conclude that this is what is called in poliee language an inside job; that the bankrupt, Israel Agron, is responsible for or acted in collusion with other persons in • tbe taking of these fur goods” — and made tbe turnover order prayed for. On Fearing tFe certificate of the referee, tbe court below confirmed tbe referee’s order. Our study of the testimony satisfies us no error was committed by the referee or the court below. Accordingly, the turnover order is affirmed.