Legal Opinion

Smith v. Hill

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 15, 1925No. 3341PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.

The appellant made the only bid at a receivers’ sale, which, later, the District Court refused to confirm. Asserting his inchoate right of a bidder at a judicial sale, the appellant took this appeal (Investment Registry, Ltd., v. Chicago & M. E. R. Co., 212 F. 594, 129 C. C. A. 130; Metzler v. Wyoming National Bank [C. C. A.] 278 F. 620; Stokes v. Williams, 226 F. 148, 141 C. C. A. 146; 3 C. J. 652, 653), and charges that the learned trial judge, in refusing confirmation, abused his discretion in that he acted on an entire absence of evidence that the bid was grossly…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stokes v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1915
  2. Investment Registry, Ltd. v. Chicago & M. E. R.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1913
  3. Robert J. Metzler, Inc. v. Wyoming Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1922

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Allen v. RupardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  2. Levin v. BaumCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
  3. Roth v. HoodCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
  4. Burke v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1957
  5. Boxwell v. BoxwellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API