FARM PRODUCTS CO.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the record contained substantial evidence to support the finding that the appellant was not a farmer.
The bankruptcy proceedings were dismissed, affirmed by the district court, and then vacated by this court due to an apparent omission of evidence. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
Heretofore we vacated and remanded the order of the district judge sitting in bankruptcy which affirmed the order of the ■conciliation commissioner dismissing the bankruptcy proceedings. Farm Products Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 136 F. 2d 286.
Our order was based upon an apparent inadvertent omission of certain evidence from the commissioner’s statement upon review to the district court.
Thereafter the petition of the appellee for rehearing was filed, in which petition it is asserted that all evidence pertinent to the issue of appeal was before the district judge upon review and is contained in the record upon appeal. Appellant has not replied.
In this state of the record we have directed the entry of an order that the petition for a rehearing shall be granted, our order shall be vacated and the cause shall be submitted for decision.
The sole question in the case is whether or not appellant is or was a farmer. Upon the record here produced there was ample substantial evidence to support the finding of the conciliation commissioner and the district court upon review that appellant here, the alleged bankrupt below, was not a farmer and therefore cannot avail itself of the provisions of § 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203.
Affirmed,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Utah Junk Co. v. Porter, 328 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1946)
-
Philadelphia Coke Co. v. Bowles, 139 F.2d 349 (Emer. Ct. App. 1943)
-
Interwoven Stocking Co. v. Bowles, 141 F.2d 696 (Emer. Ct. App. 1944)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farm Prods. Co. v. United States, 136 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1943)