Court Opinion

ID: 9636527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:32:09.929023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:46.766660
License: Public Domain

HEALY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I disagree with the holding insofar as it reverses the Board’s order. The Board found on the evidence before it that the second mortgage bonds “were in fact worthless before 1934, and the petitioner must be charged with having then ascertained it.” The facts, or inferences properly to be drawn from the facts, support the finding. Again, the Board found in a negative way that there was no sufficient proof that the bonds became worthless in 1934 or were ascertained to be worthless in that year. It is not our province, but that of the Board, to weigh the evidence and to draw the inferences.