Case ID: f_236/html/1018-02.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

In re BARNETT. BALBACH v. SURPRISE.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    May 23, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied July 18, 1916.)
    No. 2321.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. In the matter of the bankruptcy of Max Barnett. Proceeding between Paul A. Balbach and Charles L. Surprise, trustee. From an order of the referee, affirmed by the District Court, Paul A. Balbach appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Frank P. A. Brunswick, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Louis Dulsky, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
    Before KOHLSAAT, MACK, and ALSCHULER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The only substantial question involved in the case is whether or not the evidence justified the conclusion of facts, madeTiy the referee and affirmed by the trial judge, that both parties intended, not an actual business transaction, a delivery of the grains bought and sold at the future time designated for delivery, but only a settlement of the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time fixed for delivery. From an examination of the evidence we are satisfied that the conclusion reached by the referee and affirmed by the District Court was proper. The order is therefore affirmed.