Case Name: In re SNOW
Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1915-04-02
Citations: 248 F. 295
Docket Number: No. 20983
Parties: In re SNOW.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 248
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
In re SNOW.
(District Court, D. Massachusetts.
April 2, 1915.)
No. 20983.
1. BANKRUPTCY <&wkey;!26-REVIEW 03? ELECTION 03? TRUSTEE — CONPIRMATION 03? Findings of Referee.
On petition to review the election of a trustee in bankruptcy, in the absence of the evidence on which the referee acted in making his decisions as to the rights of certain claims to be voted, the referee’s findings of fact as to all the claims must be confirmed.
2. Bankruptcy <&wkey;125 — Election op Trustee — Discretion of Referee to Adjourn Meeting of Creditors.
The referee in bankruptcy has the discretion to adjourn the first meeting of creditors from time to time, to investigate disputed claims before the voting for trustee is completed.
In Bankruptcy. In the matter of the bankruptcy of William J. Snow.
Petition for review of the election of a trustee dismissed, and report of the referee confirmed.
W. Edwin Ulmer, of Boston, Mass., for Gurney Pleater Mfg. Co.
Rudolph W. Currier, of Eynn, Mass., in pro. per.

Opinion:
MORTON, District Judge.
This is a controversy over the election of a trustee. The errors complained of relate, in substance, to the action of the referee in allowing certain claims to be voted, in disallowing other claims from voting, and in declaring Currier elected trustee.
As to the disputed claims: It appears from the referee's report that material evidence upon which he acted in making 'his decision concerning the Coburn claim is not before the court. On the other disputed claims, no evidence whatever has been sent up. The referee's findings of fact as to all the claims must be confirmed. His rulings of law upon the Coburn claim were clearly correct. This claim, in addition to those about which no question is now open and which were voted for Currier, was sufficient to elect Currier, even if the Usher and Wright claims had been allowed and had been voted against him. It is therefore not necessary to decide in these proceedings the questions of law concerning those claims.
Upon the facts stated in the report, it does not appear that the referee abused bis discretion in the adjournments of the first meeting, which lie ordered from time to time for the purpose of investigating disputed claims before the voting for trustee was completed. There is no evidence before the court on which it can be found that Currier is not a proper person to act as trustee.
The petition for review is dismissed, and the report of the referee is confirmed.