210 F. 893 (6th Cir. 1914), 2529, Home Bond Co. v. McChesney

Docket Nº:2529.
Citation:210 F. 893
Party Name:HOME BOND CO. v. McCHESNEY.
Case Date:January 08, 1914
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 893

210 F. 893 (6th Cir. 1914)

HOME BOND CO.

v.

McCHESNEY.

No. 2529.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

January 8, 1914

S. M. Sapinsky, of Louisville, Ky. (James R. Duffin, Owen D. Duffin, and Duffin, Sapinsky & Duffin, all of Louisville, Ky., of counsel), for appellant.

Brown & Nuckols, of Frankfort, Ky., and Bodley & Baskin, of Louisville, Ky., for appellee.

Before WARRINGTON, KNAPPEN, and DENISON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order, entered July 10, 1913, overruling exceptions of appellant to the report of a special master, confirming such report, and disallowing certain claims presented by appellant against the estates of the bankrupts. The record is made up under an agreed statement, which was entered into pursuant to Equity Rule 77 of the Supreme Court (198 F. xli). A petition in bankruptcy had been filed against each of the two corporations, and, after adjudication and the appointment of a trustee, the two cases were consolidated and 'directed to proceed as one cause. ' The report of the special master and the opinion of the court below appear in 206 F. 309, 315. One of two similar contracts which are involved is set out in that opinion; and, since the course of business pursued under these contracts, the nature and extent of the claims so disallowed, the

Page 894

issue and the conclusions reached, as also the terms of the order, are shown in the report of the case, they need be only alluded to here. The special master and the district judge, upon full consideration of the issue and the evidence, concurred in the conclusion that the transactions had under the contracts...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP