Court Opinion

ID: 9444809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:12:38.863654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:00.683407
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Chief Judge
(concurring in result).
The issues before us on this appeal were tried out for several months before two Referees. Freeman filed his single creditor petition on February 20, 1953. Judge Barnes appointed a receiver on March 20, 1953, and on the same date referred the cause to Referee MacChes-ney by an order of general reference. Referee MacChesney heard a large amount of testimony on such questions as that of adjudication, turn-over of trucks, and other matters. However, Referee MacChesney’s term of office expired on June 4, 1953, and he was not reappointed. Testimony thereafter taken before Referee Hall duplicated, in some respects, that given before Referee MacChesney.
I do not agree with the statement in Judge Finnegan’s opinion that Freeman has “* * * simply raised tenuous points in his appeal." After studying the record herein, I have concluded that Freeman’s contentions on this appeal were not frivolous. True, the record is prolix, but there is much evidence that tends to support Freeman’s claims, and had the Referee found in his favor and had these findings been confirmed by the District Court, I would think this Court would be required to affirm on appeal.
Russell W. Borrowdale testified: “I am the Sussin Corporation.” It is clearly evident from the record that Borrow-dale was the Bankrupt’s alter ego. There were many transactions between Borrowdale and Freeman, the terms of which were known only to those two persons. There can be no doubt that between May 14, 1952 and September 24, 1952 Freeman advanced considerable sums to Borrowdale. The question of whether Freeman or the Bankrupt owns the Marston promissory notes appears to me to be a close one on this record.
 However, Bankruptcy General Order 47, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53, provides that the judge shall accept the Referee's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. We have held that the weight to be accorded Referee’s findings of fact is similar to the weight to be accorded findings of Masters and verdicts of juries. In re Morris, 7 Cir., 152 F.2d 178. A Referee’s order affirmed by the District Court will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. In re Pringle Engineering & Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 164 F.2d 299.
Applying these rules I cannot say that the Referee’s findings confirmed by the Court, were clearly erroneous. I therefore agree that the judgment of the District Court should be
Affirmed.
SWAIM, Circuit Judge.
For the reasons assigned in Judge DUFFY’S concurring opinion, I also agree that the judgment of the District Court should be Affirmed.