In re MCCASLAND & LEFTWICH

Annotate this Case

In re MCCASLAND & LEFTWICH
1906 OK 22
85 P. 1118
16 Okla. 499
Decided: 02/15/1906
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

In re MCCASLAND & LEFTWICH, Bankrupts. TAPP-LEATHERS COMPANY, Petitioners.

Syllabus

¶0 BANKRUPTCY--Appeals. An appeal from the district court in the Territory, in a matter in bankruptcy, will lie to the Territorial supreme court only: First, from a judgment adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendant a bankrupt; second, from a judgment granting or denying a discharge; and third, from a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt of five hundred dollars or over.

Error from the District Court of Comanche County; before F. E. Gillette, Trial Judge.

H. N. McConnell, for petitioners.
A. C. King, F. E. Riddle, and Sims & Wolverton, for appellee.

PANCOAST, J.:

¶1 This is an appeal from the decision of the district court of Comanche county, in an action of bankruptcy. The decision appealed from was upon a matter decided by the referee in bankruptcy and referred to the court for review, under section 1262 of the rules, forms and orders in bankruptcy, promulgated by the supreme court of the United States.

¶2 The appeal is not from a judgment adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendants bankrupts, nor from a judgment denying or granting a discharge, nor from a judgment allowing or rejecting a claim of five hundred dollars or over. Therefore, the matters involved are not such as can be reviewed by this court on appeal.

¶3 This court has held, in Ex Parte Stumpff, 9 Okla. 639, 60 P. 96:

"An appeal from the district court in the Territory, in a matter in bankruptcy, will lie to the territorial supreme court only: First, from a judgment adjudging or refusing to adjudge the defendant a bankrupt; second, from a judgment granting or denying a discharge; and third, from a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt of five hundred dollars or over."

¶4 There being no question submitted to this court of which it can take cognizance, it follows that the appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

¶5 Gillette, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.