Case Name: BROCKWAY MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Emanuel FRIEDMAN, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Heintz-Merkle & Co., Inc.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1932-09-23
Citations: 61 F.2d 519
Docket Number: No. 4880
Parties: BROCKWAY MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Emanuel FRIEDMAN, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Heintz-Merkle & Co., Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 61
Pages: 519–519

Head Matter:
BROCKWAY MOTOR TRUCK CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Emanuel FRIEDMAN, Receiver in Bankruptcy of Heintz-Merkle & Co., Inc.
No. 4880.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit,
Sept. 23, 1932.
H. Eugene Heine and Henry L. Shepaxd, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
A. J. Creskoff and D. Hays Solis-Cohen, both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Michael Eddman, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for ap-pellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
This is another of the constantly recurring questions of whether machinery, etc., in the possession of a bankrupt was held by bailment or conditional sale. Necessarily each case turns on its particular facts and the instrument under which 'it is held and whether they constituted a bailment or a conditional sale.
Tho facts and a discussion of the, writing here involved are fully set forth in the opinion of the referee (1 F. Supp. 531), and by reference thereto we avoid needless repetition. The referee therein held there was no bailment. On certificate, the court below adopted tbe referee's view. After due consideration had, we come to the same conclusion, and therefore limit ourselves to affirming the court's decree.