Bankruptcy

CLARK v. MILENS

32 F.2d 1004·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1929

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

CLARK v. MILENS. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 27, 1929. No. 5713. See, also, 28 F.(2d) 457. Coan & Rosenberg, of Portland, Or., for appellant. James H. McMenamin, Thomas J. Cleeton, and Willis A. Potter, all of Portland, Or., for appellee. Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges. Rehearing denied June 24, 1929. [MAJORITY — RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.] RUDKIN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order dismissing a proceeding for contempt for failure on the part of a bankrupt to obey a turnover order made by the referee. The case was heard on testimony in the court below and no record has been brought here except the opinion of that-court. But the rule is well settled that on appeal recourse cannot be had to an opinion filed by the court below to ascertain the facts, where there is no evidence in the record and where the case was decided on issues of fact. Townsend v. Beatrice Cemetery Ass’n (C. C. A.) 138 F. 381, and cases there cited. The order of the court below is affirmed.