Wade v. Blieden, 10678.
Decision Date | 05 November 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 10678.,10678. |
Citation | 86 F.2d 75 |
Parties | WADE v. BLIEDEN. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Surrey E. Gilliam and Edward H. Coulter, both of El Dorado, Ark. (Charles W. McKay, of Magnolia, Ark., on the brief), for appellant.
Arthur L. Adams, of Jonesboro, Ark., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, SANBORN, and FARIS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decree in favor of the plaintiff in a suit brought by Ed Blieden, trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of S. R. Morgan, bankrupt, against Hopkins Wade to recover three promissory notes alleged to have been transferred to Wade by the bankrupt in fraud of his creditors within four months prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.
On March 5, 1936, the appellant filed his petition for the allowance of this appeal, together with the following "Assignments of Error":
On March 18, 1936, the appellant, without leave of this court, filed a "Supplemental Assignment of Errors" purporting to supplement and enlarge assignment No. VI quoted above. The supplemental assignment reads:
At the outset, we are met with the contention of the appellee, the trustee in bankruptcy, that these assignments of error are insufficient to present any question for review.
Rule 23 of this court provides as follows:
The requirements of rule 23 are not limited to appeals in actions at law, but are also applicable to appeals in equity. Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U.S. 609, 614, 10 S.Ct. 771, 34 L.Ed. 246; Randolph v. Allen (C.C.A.5) 73 F. 23, 29.
Assignments I and II amount to nothing but a statement that the court entered the wrong decree. Such assignments do not set out "separately and particularly" any claimed error. They do not point out in what respects or for what reasons the decree is claimed to be erroneous, and are therefore insufficient. Columbia Pictures Corp. v. Lawton-Byrne-Bruner Ins. Agency Co. (C.C.A.8) 73 F.(2d) 18, 19; McCarthy v. Ruddock (C.C.A.9) 43 F.(2d) 976; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Cutting (C.C.A.5) 68 F. 586; McFarlane v. Golling (C.C.A.7) 76 F. 23; Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co. (C.C.A.9) 70 F. 455, 461; Trustees System Co. of Pennsylvania v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Labor Relations Board v. Ford Motor Co.
...F. 29, 34; Jonah v. Armstrong, 10 Cir., 52 F.2d 343, 345; National Reserve Ins. Co. v. Scudder, 9 Cir., 71 F. 2d 884, 888; Wade v. Blieden, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 75, 77; Anderson v. United States, 8 Cir., 65 F.2d 870, 872. As to the presumption of regularity of official acts, see Smith v. St. Lou......
-
Hedrick v. Perry
...Jonah v. Armstrong, 10 Cir., 52 F.2d 343; Elliott v. Gordon, 10 Cir., 70 F.2d 9; Wall v. United States, 10 Cir., 97 F.2d 672; Wade v. Blieden, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 75; Erceg v. Fairbanks Exploration Co., 9 Cir., 95 F.2d The decree is affirmed. ...
-
Anderson v. Federal Cartridge Corporation
...States, 8 Cir., 65 F.2d 870; Clauson v. United States, 8 Cir., 60 F.2d 694; Howells State Bank v. Novotny, 8 Cir., 69 F.2d 32; Wade v. Blieden, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 75. By liberally construing the points relied upon in favor of the plaintiffs, we think they are sufficient to raise the question a......
-
Wall v. United States
...considered only competent evidence and disregarded that which was incompetent. Anderson v. United States, 8 Cir., 65 F.2d 870; Wade v. Blieden, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 75; United States v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, 9 Cir., 73 F.2d The judgment is affirmed. ...