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.
Hoyt WHELCHEL, as Trustee of Moultrie Creamery & Produce Company, Bankrupt, et al., Appellants v. CITIZENS' BANK OF MOULTRIE, Appellee, 1924 — 1 F.2d 1023 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Hoyt WHELCHEL, as Trustee of Moultrie Creamery & Produce Company, Bankrupt, et al., Appellants v. CITIZENS' BANK OF MOULTRIE, Appellee
1 F.2d 1023·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1924
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
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
Hoyt WHELCHEL, as Trustee of Moultrie Creamery & Produce Company, Bankrupt, et al., Appellants v. CITIZENS’ BANK OF MOULTRIE, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 21, 1924.)
No. 4311.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia; William H. Barrett, Judge.
Orville A. Park, of Macon, Ga. (Jones, Park & Johnston and Harris, Harris & Popper, all of Macon, Ga., and Pope & Bennet, of' Albany, Ga., on the brief), for appellants. R. J. Bacon, of Baeonton, Ga., and Erie B. Askew,' of Moultrie, Ga., for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — KING, Circuit Judge.]
KING, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the District Court of the United States of the Southern District of Georgia, reversing the referee and finding a debt of the Citizens’ Bank of Moultrie, appellee, should be increased by the sum of $1,573. There was evidence in the record which authorized the court to find that said debt was $1,573 in excess of the amount found by the referee. The question seems to be one solely of fact. The court might have well concluded from the evidence that a mistake had been made by the referee in excluding the note for $1,573, and that it was still due. The judgment of the court in increasing said debt by said amount is therefore affirmed.