Case ID: f2d_2/html/0597-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KING, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WELLS et al. v. ERWIN et al.
    (Circuit. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    October 28, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied November 21, 1924.)
    No. 4405.
    Bankruptcy <©=>444—Proceedings to revise held insufficient to give jurisdiction.
    A petition to revise an order of the District Court will be dismissed, where it was not served on parties adversely interested, who are made parties thereto, and where the record does not contain either an agreed statement of facts or findings of fact by the court or referee.
    Petition for Revision of Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; Samuel H. Sibley, Judge.
    In the Matter of A. M. Wells, bankrupt; W. S. Erwin, trustee. On petition by A. G. Wells and others to revise an order of the District Court.
    Dismissed.
    Stephen C. Upson, of Athens, Ga., for petitioners.
    Alex. W. Smith, Jr., of Atlanta, Ga., and Hamilton Kimzey, of Cornelia, Ga. (Smith, Hammond & Smith, of Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for respondents.
    Before WALKER, BRYAN,- and KING, Circuit Judges.
   KING, Circuit Judge.

In this ease a petition to superintend and revise an order of the District Court was filed in this court, and to such petition W. S. Erwin, as trustee of A. M. Wells, bankrupt, Cornelia Bank of Cornelia, Ga., and L. C. Bell, lien creditors, were made defendants. The real controversy was between A. G. Wells and the said bank and Bell. They made a motion to dismiss the proceedings in this court, upon the ground that they had not been served with due notice of the pendency of such petition for revision, and because there was not embodied in the record either an agreed statement of facts or a finding of facts by the judge or referee.

An examination of the transcript of record in this ease disclosed that no service was made upon them of such petition, but the same alleges that “service of the filing of this petition to superintend and revise said order of said court will be duly given to each of the above-named respondents,” after naming them as such. We also find some recitals of facts in the judge’s opinion, but no agreed statement of all the facts, or statement of those found by the referee or judge.

. The motion to dismiss is' therefore sustained, and the ease is ordered dismissed, on the above grounds.