Case ID: f2d_15/html/0848-01.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

WILLIS v. BLUE RIDGE BANK, Inc., et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    November 17, 1926.)
    No. 2561.
    Bankruptcy <©=>467 — Appellate court, unless convinced referee’s and judge’s conclusion that appellant was not engaged chiefly in farming was wrong, cannot disturb it.
    To justify Circuit Court of Appeals in disturbing conclusion of referee and judge that appellant was not chiefly engaged in farming, relative to Bankruptcy Act, it must be convinced that they were wrong.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of ^Virginia, at Roanoke, in Bankruptcy; Henry Clay McDowell, Judge.
    Emma V. Willis was adjudged bankrupt on petition of the Blue Ridge Bank, Inc., and others, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    L. H. Shrader, of Amherst, Va., and W. J. Henson, of Roanoke, Va. (Jackson & Henson, of Roanoke, Va., and B. G. Howard, of Ployd, Va., on the brief), for appellant.
    J. W. McCauley, of Roanoke, Va. (J. E. Proffit, of Ployd, Va., on the brief), for appellees.
    Before ROSE and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant says she should not have been adjudicated a bankrupt, because she was engaged chiefly in farming. The referee who saw and heard the witnesses held that she was not. The District Judge was of the same opinion. We would not be justified in disturbing their conclusion, unless we were convinced that they were wrong. In fact, we think they were right.

Affirmed.