In re Russell
| Decision Date | 28 December 1900 |
| Docket Number | 2,741. |
| Citation | 105 F. 501 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | In re RUSSELL. |
It appears from the certificate of the referee that H. L. Davis filed his claim against the estate of the bankrupt for the sum of $416.39. Written objections were made to its allowance by other creditors, and upon consideration the claim was rejected by the referee. The opinion and order of the referee are accompanied by his certificate, which recites that, 'the attorney for said claimant having duly excepted to my ruling herein, said question is hereby certified to the Honorable John J. De Haven for his opinion. ' Rule 27 of the general orders in bankruptcy (18 Sup.Ct. viii,) prescribed by the supreme court is as follows:
'When a bankrupt, creditor, trustee, or other person shall desire a review by the judge of any order made by the referee, he shall file with the referee his petition therefor, setting out the error complained of; and the referee shall forthwith certify to the judge the question presented, a summary of the evidence relating thereto, and the finding and order of the referee thereon.'
This rule does not seem to have been complied with by the creditor. It does not appear from the certificate of the referee or from any paper returned to this court that any petition for the review of the order of the referee rejecting his claim has been filed by him with the referee. In the absence of such a petition, this court is not authorized to review the action of the referee. The application for a review of the ruling of the referee will therefore be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Faerstein
...is entered, the referee's power over the order is ended. The remedy is exclusive and he may not review or change the order. In re Russell (D. C.) 105 F. 501; In re Wister & Co. (D. C.) 232 F. 898; also, In re Greek Mfg. Co. (D. C.) 164 F. 211; In re Marks (D. C.) 171 F. 281; In re Avoca Sil......
-
In re Tomlinson & Dye, 1654.
...This question has also received the attention of the District Court for the Northern District of California, and it was stated in Re Russell, 105 F. 501, that: "Where a creditor, whose claim has been disallowed by the referee, fails to file a petition for review with the referee, as require......
-
In re L. & R. Wister & Co.
... ... his own behalf a petition to review (except upon leave of the ... court), nor will he be heard to complain of a referee's ... order on petition to review filed by another party. In re ... Schiller (D.C.) 96 F. 400; In ... [237 F. 796.] ... re Scott (D.C.) 99 F. 404; In re Russell (D.C.) 105 ... F. 501; In re Hawley (D.C.) 116 F. 428; In re ... Home Discount Co. (D.C.) 147 F. 538; In re Greek ... Mfg. Co. (D.C.) 164 F. 211; In re Marks (D.C.) ... 171 F. 281; Re Jamison Bros., 209 F. 542, ... C.C.A ... Shimer ... did none of the things required of him ... ...
-
In re Great Western Petroleum Corporation
...is entered, the referee's power over the order is ended. The remedy is exclusive and he may not review or change the order. In re Russell (D.C.) 105 F. 501; In re Wister & Co. (D.C.) 232 F. 898; also, In re Greek Mfg. Co. (D.C.) 164 F. 211; In re Marks (D.C.) 171 F. 281; In re Avoca Silk Co......