Case Name: In re SAMUEL WILDE'S SONS
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1906-02-01
Citations: 144 F. 972
Docket Number: No. 80
Parties: In re SAMUEL WILDE’S SONS.
Judges: Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 144
Pages: 972–972

Head Matter:
In re SAMUEL WILDE’S SONS.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 1, 1906.)
No. 80.
Bankruptcy — Review op Referee’s Decision — Powers of Court.
Under the very broad provisions of Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, §2 (10.), 30 Stat. 546 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421], a District Court, in reviewing an order or report of a referee, may properly consider any point presented by the record before it, whether or not such point was discussed before or by the referee.
[Ed. Note. — Appeal and review in bankruptcy cases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.]
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This cause comes here upon appeal from an order of the District Court, Southern District of New York, reversing an order of the referee in bankruptcy, and allowing a claim of II. C. Bennett & Co. against the bankrupt’s estate. The opinion of the District Judge is reported in 133 Fed. 562.
H. H. Bowman, for appellant.
H. A. Maas, for appellees.
Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Upon the point of practice raised preliminarily to the main argument, we are clearly of the opinion that, when a District Court is reviewing an order or report of a referee in bankruptcy, under the very broad provisions of Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 2 (10), 30 Stat. 546 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3421], it may properly consider any point presented by the record then before it, whether such point was or was not discussed before or by the referee. .
We are further of the opinion that the order of the District Court should be affirmed.