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.
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. UNITED STATES ex rel. WOODS. In re FRANK J. VICTOR, Inc., 1934 — 72 F.2d 828 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. UNITED STATES ex rel. WOODS. In re FRANK J. VICTOR, Inc.
72 F.2d 828·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1934
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
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. UNITED STATES ex rel. WOODS. In re FRANK J. VICTOR, Inc.
No. 7378.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 7, 1934.
Grinstead, Laube, Laughlin & Meakim, Loren Grinstead, William T. Laube, James A. Laughlin, Roger J. Meakim, and Arthur Grunbaum, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
Walter A. McClure, McClure & McClure, and Stern & Stern, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges,
[MAJORITY — WILBUR, Circuit Judge.]
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
The Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland was surety for Joseph Mayer, former trustee in bankruptcy for Frank J. Victor, Inc., and appeals from a judgment rendered against it in an action at law tried by the court sitting without a jury in pursuance of a stipulation in open court waiving the jury. The judgment is for the sum of $86.24 on one count and $1,937.61 on the other. Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. This question was not raised in the trial court either by motion or by request for findings or conclusion of law, and, consequently, cannot be considered by us.
The assignments with reference to the admission of evidence will not be considered because they do not conform to the rules of this court (Rule No. 11).
Judgment affirmed.