Case ID: f_94/html/0709-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      GILBERT, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re DUNNING.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    May 23, 1899.)
    No. 538.
    Appear and Error — Assignment op Errors.
    Where, on appeal from a final order of the district court granting a discharge to a bankrupt, no assignment of errors is filed in such court, as required by rulo 11 of the circuit courts of appeal (31 G. C. A. cxlvi., 90 Fed. cxlvi.), the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.
    Milton E. Young, for appellant.
    Franklin 1’. Bull, for appellee.
    Before GILBERT and MORROW, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.
   GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

The appeal was taken in this case from the final order of the district court granting Eber T. Dunning a discharge from all debts and claims which were made provable by the acts of congress relating to bankruptcy which existed on the 3d day of September, 1898. No assignment of errors was filed in the district court, and the requirements of our rule 11 in that respect were wholly disregarded. On account of such failure to comply with the rule, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed. U. S. v. Goodrich, 4 C. C. A. 160, 54 Fed. 21; Insurance Co. v. Conoley, 11 C. C. A. 116, 63 Fed. 180. We place our judgment of affirmance wholly upon the ground indicated, in the hope that attention may be drawn to the necessity of compliance with the rule. It may be added that upon the, hearing of the cause not only was no “plain error not • assigned” suggested, but, upon the contrary, the court was convinced that upon the merits the decision of the district court was not erroneous.