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.
Charles E. BAKER, Appellant, v. Robert C. SPROUL, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the J. G. Bennett Co., Appellee, 1930 — 37 F.2d 938 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Charles E. BAKER, Appellant, v. Robert C. SPROUL, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the J. G. Bennett Co., Appellee
37 F.2d 938·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1930
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
Charles E. BAKER, Appellant, v. Robert C. SPROUL, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the J. G. Bennett Co., Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals; Third Circuit.
January 8, 1930.
No. 4184.
For opinion below, see 37 F.(2d) 937.
Lowrie C. Barton, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Alter, Wright & Barron, Stoneeipher & Ralston, and Frank W. Stoneeipher, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for. appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
This ease is an attempt to have this court reverse a finding of faet 'by a referee whieb bas been approved by the court below. The appellant, Baker, bid $100,000 for certain assets sold by a trustee in bankruptcy at auction. They were knocked down to him, at his bid. He contends he withdrew his bid before they were so knocked down. The trustee contends to the contrary. That question of fact was tried out by the referee, witnesses > pro and con were heard, and he found as a faet, after a careful analysis of the proofs and the character of the several witnesses, that Baker had not withdrawn his bid. On certificate by the referee, the court in a careful opinion reached the same conclusion. A study of the proofs by the members of this court leads it to the same conclusion.
The order of the court below is therefore affirmed. '