Bankruptcy

FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., Appellant, v. Lawrence FRIEDMAN, Trustee, etc.

74 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1934

Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, 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

FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., Appellant, v. Lawrence FRIEDMAN, Trustee, etc. No. 5488. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Dec. 14, 1934. Willis Bacon and Burch, Bacon & Den-linger, all of Akron, Ohio, and Frank W. Stonecipher and Stonecipher & Ralston, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant. Hyman Schlesinger and A. IT. Kaufman, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee. Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. The subject-matter of this case was whether the appellant had received an unlawful preference over the bankrupt’s other creditors, and the question involved was whether the court erred in refusing to give binding instructions in favor of the appellant, the alleged preferred creditor. The case depends on its own particular facts, and no principles or precedents are in question. Finding no error on the part of the court in refusing appellant’s request for binding instructions in its favor, we limit ourselves to affirming the judgment below.