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.
In re FINKELSTEIN, 1925 — 3 F.2d 1006 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
In re FINKELSTEIN
3 F.2d 1006·United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania·1925
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
In re FINKELSTEIN.
(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
February 11, 1925.)
No. 7221.
Bankruptcy <@=228 — District Court will not review order of referee on referee’s certificate, in absence of petition by party desiring review.
District Court will not review order of referee, on referee’s certificate of review, in absence of petition for review by party desiring review, under General Order XXVII, such General Order being mandatory.
In Bankruptcy. In the matter of Max Finkelstein, individually and trading as the Quaker Shoe Company, bankrupt. On certificate of review of order of referee.
Dismissed.
Reber, Granger & Montgomery and J. Howard Reber, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for trustee.
Furth, Singer & Bortin and David Bor-tin, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for bankrupt.
[MAJORITY — THOMPSON, District Judge.]
THOMPSON, District Judge.
The order of the referee certified for review was brought before the court upon a certificate of the referee. It appears by the record certified that the bankrupt did not file with the referee a petition for review in accordance with General Order XXVII. As the General Order is mandatory in requiring a petition of the party desiring a review, this court, in the absence of sueh a petition, has no authority to review the action of the referee. In re Russell (D. C.) 105 F. 501; In re Home Discount Co. (D. C.) 147 F. 538, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 168.
The application for review of the order of the referee will therefore be dismissed.