Case ID: f_202/html/0743-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GIBSON v. SAMPLES. In re HARVEY.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    November 19, 1912.)
    No. 1,105.
    Appeal and Ebrok (§ 1022) — Review on Appeal — Questions of Fact.
    Findings of fact by a referee, who heard the witnesses, confirmed by the 'District Court, will not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless clearly erroneous.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4015-4018 ; Dec. Dig. § 1022.
    
    Appeal and review in bankruptcy eases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.]
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Philippi, in Bankruptcy; Alston G. Dayton, Judge.
    In the matter of O. L. Harvey, bankrupt; W. P. Samples, trustee. From an order of the District Court, M. C. Gibson appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. Blackburn Ware, of Belington, W. Va., and F. E. Parrack, of Tunnelton, W. Va., for appellant.
    W. P. Samples, of Grafton, W. Va., for appellee.
    Before GOFF and PRITCHARD, Circuit Judges, and ROSE, District Judge.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

There are a number of assignments of error. In' terms, some of them raise questions of law. An examination of the record, however, shows that such questions are not material, if the conclusions of the court below as to the facts are correct. The referee had the witnesses before him. The conclusion he reached was confirmed by the learned judge of the court below. The record does not persuade us that they were mistaken.

Affirmed.