Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In the Matter of Admiral Container Corporation, Debtor. Doris Z. Dodd, a Creditor, 10554 (1952)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 10554 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 03, 1952
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 193 F.2d 330 In the Matter of ADMIRAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, Debtor. Doris Z. Dodd, a Creditor, Appellant. No. 10554. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued December 21, 1951. Decided January 3, 1952. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Thomas F. Meaney, Judge. 1 Robert Carey, Jr., Newark, N. J. (Thomas V. Jardine, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellant. 2 Morris M. Ravin, Newark, N. J. (Lionel P. Kristeller, Newark, N. J., of counsel;
More

193 F.2d 330

In the Matter of ADMIRAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, Debtor. Doris Z. Dodd, a Creditor, Appellant.

No. 10554.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued December 21, 1951.

Decided January 3, 1952.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Thomas F. Meaney, Judge.

1

Robert Carey, Jr., Newark, N. J. (Thomas V. Jardine, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellant.

2

Morris M. Ravin, Newark, N. J. (Lionel P. Kristeller, Newark, N. J., of counsel; David N. Ravin, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for receiver.

3

Milton H. Goldberger, Newark, N. J. (Gross & Blumberg, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.

4

Smith, Schnacke & Compton, Dayton, Ohio (Ford W. Ekey, Dayton, Ohio, on the brief), for creditor-respondent.

5

In proceedings under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act.

6

Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

7

PER CURIAM.

8

The motion to dismiss this appeal as moot is denied.

9

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court in a Chapter XI, 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq., bankruptcy proceeding which confirmed the Debtor's plan of arrangement. The plan was before the District Judge on two occasions. After the first hearing the matter was returned to the Referee for further testimony. D.C., 95 F. Supp. 723. Following the second hearing the Court below confirmed and approved the plan. Our independent scrutiny of the record leads us to the conclusion that the Referee's findings of fact, at the very least are not clearly erroneous and that the District Court's affirmance of those findings was not such a plain mistake as would result in the defeat of justice. The judgment of the District Court will therefore be affirmed. In re Wolf, 3 Cir., 165 F.2d 707.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer